GR 203833; (March, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203833 ; March 19, 2013
Mamerto T. Sevilla, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections and Renato R. So
FACTS
Petitioner Mamerto T. Sevilla, Jr. and respondent Renato R. So were candidates for Punong Barangay in the October 2010 elections. Sevilla was proclaimed the winner. So filed an election protest. After a recount of ballots from pilot precincts, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the protest. So filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MeTC denied as a prohibited pleading under the applicable rules. So then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC judge in the appreciation of ballots.
The COMELEC Second Division granted So’s petition, finding the MeTC’s order dismissive and couched in general, “copy-pasted” terms regarding handwriting analysis. The COMELEC En Banc, in a 3-3 vote, affirmed the Second Division, ordering another revision of ballots. The tie vote resulted in the affirmation of the Division’s ruling under COMELEC rules.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to So’s certiorari petition and in its disposition of the case despite a 3-3 vote.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed Sevilla’s petition but remanded the case to the COMELEC En Banc. The Court held that while So availed of the wrong remedy initially by filing a prohibited motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC may relax procedural rules in election cases to ensure the will of the electorate prevails. The core legal issue, however, concerned the effect of the En Banc’s 3-3 vote. Citing Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and jurisprudence (Juliano v. COMELEC), the Court ruled that when the En Banc divides equally, it must schedule a rehearing. A tie vote does not result in an automatic affirmation of the Division ruling for purposes of finality; it necessitates a rehearing to reach a conclusive resolution. Since the En Banc did not conduct a rehearing due to the filing of the instant Supreme Court petition, the case was remanded to the COMELEC En Banc to conduct the required rehearing with dispatch. The Court emphasized that the remand was procedural, aimed at ensuring a definitive ruling from the En Banc as mandated by its own rules.