GR 194139; (January, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 194139 ; January 24, 2012
DOUGLAS R. CAGAS, Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND CLAUDE P. BAUTISTA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Douglas R. Cagas and respondent Claude P. Bautista were candidates for Governor of Davao del Sur in the May 10, 2010 automated elections. Cagas was proclaimed the winner. Bautista filed an election protest (EPC No. 2010-42) before the COMELEC First Division, alleging fraud, anomalies, and irregularities. In his Answer, Cagas raised special affirmative defenses, arguing that Bautista failed to make the requisite cash deposit on time and that the protest did not contain a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 8804. The COMELEC First Division issued an Order dated August 13, 2010, denying Cagas’s affirmative defenses, finding substantial compliance with the cash deposit requirement and that the protest’s allegations (paragraphs 9 to 28) set forth sufficient specific details. Cagas filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the First Division denied in an Order dated October 7, 2010, reiterating that the protest substantially complied with the rules and that the order was merely interlocutory and thus not subject to elevation to the COMELEC en banc. Cagas then filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the protest for insufficiency in form and content.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the petition for certiorari directly assailing the interlocutory orders of the COMELEC First Division.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC in an election protest may not directly assail that order in the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari. The proper remedy is to await the final decision of the Division and raise the issue on appeal in due course. The Court emphasized that its power to review COMELEC decisions, orders, or rulings is generally limited to those rendered by the Commission en banc, as provided under Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and related jurisprudence. Interlocutory orders issued by a Division during the pendency of an election protest do not constitute a final disposition of the case and are therefore not directly reviewable by certiorari. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC First Division in its interlocutory orders, which merely allowed the election protest to proceed based on a finding of substantial compliance with procedural requirements.