G.R. No. 190526, February 26, 2010
SANDRA Y. ERIGUEL, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MA. THERESA DUMPIT-MICHELENA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sandra Y. Eriguel and private respondent Ma. Theresa Dumpit-Michelena were candidates for mayor of Agoo, La Union in the May 14, 2007 elections. Eriguel was proclaimed the winner with 11,803 votes against Dumpit’s 7,899, a margin of 3,904 votes. Dumpit filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agoo, contesting the appreciation of ballots in 152 precincts. After revision, Eriguel’s lead was 3,839 votes. The RTC dismissed the protest, upholding Eriguel’s proclamation. Dumpit appealed to the COMELEC. The case was assigned to the COMELEC Special Second Division, composed of Presiding Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento and Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer. Commissioner Ferrer inhibited himself, leaving only one member. Presiding Commissioner Sarmiento issued an Order dated July 22, 2009, elevating the appeal to the Commission en banc pursuant to Section 5(b), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides for automatic elevation if the required number of members to reach a decision is not obtained. The COMELEC en banc then conducted a fresh appreciation of the contested ballots and, on December 9, 2009, promulgated a resolution nullifying 3,711 ballots cast for Eriguel, finding them written by only one or two persons. It declared Dumpit the winner by 167 votes. Eriguel filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Special Second Division of the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in automatically elevating the appeal to the Commission en banc without first resolving it.
2. Whether the COMELEC en banc legally proceeded with a fresh appreciation of the contested ballots without first ascertaining that the same had been kept inviolate.

RULING

1. Yes. The automatic elevation of the appeal to the Commission en banc was invalid. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC must hear and decide election cases first in division. The Commission en banc may only review a division’s decision upon a motion for reconsideration. The Special Second Division’s immediate transfer of the case to the en banc, due to the inhibition of one commissioner, contravened this constitutional mandate. Instead of elevating the case, the Division should have assigned another commissioner to attain a quorum. Consequently, the Commission en banc acted without jurisdiction in hearing and deciding Dumpit’s appeal.
2. Yes. The COMELEC en banc erred in proceeding with a fresh appreciation of the ballots without first ascertaining their integrity. The records indicated that an investigation had been ordered regarding missing election returns and tampered ballot boxes in La Union. Eriguel had filed an omnibus motion expressing concern over these issues, which remained unresolved when the Commission promulgated its resolution. Following the doctrine in Rosal v. Commission on Elections, the integrity of the ballots must be established before any revision or appreciation. The COMELEC’s failure to do so rendered its appreciation flawed.
The petition was granted. The COMELEC en banc Resolution dated December 9, 2009, was annulled and set aside. The RTC decision declaring Eriguel the duly elected mayor was reinstated.