GR 191550; (May, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191550; May 4, 2010
HENRY “JUN” DUEĂ‘AS, JR., Petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ANGELITO “JETT” P. REYES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Henry Dueñas, Jr. was proclaimed Congressman for Taguig City’s Second District. Private respondent Angelito Reyes filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). After revision of ballots in all protested precincts and 25% of counter-protested precincts, the HRET ordered continuation of revision for the remaining 75% of counter-protested precincts. Petitioner challenged this order via a prior certiorari petition (G.R. No. 185401), which the Supreme Court dismissed, the decision becoming final. The HRET then proceeded, ultimately declaring Reyes the winner by a margin of 37 votes.
Petitioner filed this instant certiorari petition, arguing the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion. He contended that the slim 37-vote margin proved the initial revision did not substantially affect results, making the order for further revision baseless. He also noted the three Supreme Court Justice-members of the HRET did not participate in the assailed Decision and Resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the continuation of ballot revision and in rendering its Decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction to review HRET decisions is limited to instances of grave abuse—a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of power so patent as to constitute an evasion of duty. No such abuse exists here.
Petitioner’s core argument—that the 37-vote margin invalidates the HRET’s reason for continuing the revision—is unmeritorious. The Court had already definitively ruled in the prior case (G.R. No. 185401) that the HRET acted within its rules in ordering the continuation. Petitioner cannot resurrect these finally adjudicated claims. The subsequent outcome does not retroactively render the order a grave abuse.
Furthermore, the non-participation of the three Supreme Court Justice-members in the HRET Decision does not indicate grave abuse. Under HRET Rule 89, a decision requires the concurrence of at least five Members. The assailed Decision had the concurrence of six members, fully complying with the rules. The HRET was thus acting within its lawful discretion, which the Court will not disturb.