GR 189431; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189431 & 191120, April 7, 2010
MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTEMIO BALAG, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Quintin B. Saludaga and respondent Artemio Balag were candidates for Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar in the May 14, 2007 elections. Saludaga was proclaimed the winner. Balag filed an election protest (EP Case No. A-88) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC, in a Decision dated March 12, 2008, declared Balag the winning candidate. Saludaga appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division, in a Resolution dated August 12, 2009, affirmed the RTC Decision with modification, declaring Balag the winner by 127 votes. Balag filed a Motion for Execution Pending Motion for Reconsideration. The COMELEC Second Division, through an Order dated September 4, 2009 signed solely by Presiding Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer, granted the motion, citing the briefness of the remaining term. Saludaga filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc and also filed a Petition for Certiorari ( G.R. No. 189431 ) with the Supreme Court challenging the September 4, 2009 Order. Balag filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss with the COMELEC en banc, contending Saludaga engaged in forum shopping. The COMELEC en banc, in a Resolution dated January 20, 2010, granted Balag’s motion to dismiss and denied Saludaga’s motions for reconsideration, solely on the finding that Saludaga committed forum shopping. This prompted Saludaga to file an Ad Cautelam Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (G.R. No. 191120).
ISSUE
1. In G.R. No. 189431 : Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the September 4, 2009 Order granting execution pending motion for reconsideration.
2. In G.R. No. 191120: Whether the COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the August 12, 2009 Resolution and the January 20, 2010 Resolution, respectively.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petitions.
1. On the issue of forum shopping ( G.R. No. 189431 & 191120): The Court ruled that Saludaga did not commit forum shopping. The September 4, 2009 Order of the COMELEC Second Division was an interlocutory order. Under Section 5(c), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders of a division are resolved by the division which issued the order. Thus, Saludaga’s filing of a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc and a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, both questioning the same interlocutory order, did not violate the rule against forum shopping because the COMELEC en banc did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration of that interlocutory order. The elements of res judicata, particularly identity of jurisdiction, were absent.
2. On the validity of the September 4, 2009 Order ( G.R. No. 189431 ): The Court ruled that the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion. The Order was issued in violation of the COMELEC’s own rules. First, under Item 6(b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8654, a motion for execution pending motion for reconsideration must be certified and elevated to the Commission en banc if not resolved within ten days. The Second Division failed to do this. Second, the Order was signed only by the Presiding Commissioner, contravening the collegial nature of the Division. The Court cited its ruling in Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC that a division acts as a collegial body and must issue orders as such.
3. On the January 20, 2010 COMELEC en banc Resolution (G.R. No. 191120): The Court ruled that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Saludaga’s motions based solely on a finding of forum shopping, which was erroneous. Furthermore, the en banc improperly granted Balag’s Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, which was a prohibited pleading under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Rule 13, Section 1(i) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, which prohibits motions to dismiss).
The Supreme Court nullified the COMELEC Second Division’s September 4, 2009 Order and the COMELEC en banc’s January 20, 2010 Resolution. The case was remanded to the COMELEC for the proper resolution of Saludaga’s motion for reconsideration of the August 12, 2009 Resolution.