G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016
FELICIANO LEGASPI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO D. GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Feliciano Legaspi and private respondent Alfredo D. Germar were mayoralty candidates in Norzagaray, Bulacan, while private respondent Rogelio Santos was a candidate for councilor in the May 13, 2013 elections. On May 14, 2013, Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification (SPA No. 13-353 (DC)) against Germar and Santos, alleging they engaged in massive vote-buying from May 11, 2013, until election day. The COMELEC Special First Division, by a 2-1 vote on October 3, 2013, disqualified the private respondents. They moved for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. In its July 10, 2014 Resolution, the en banc, with a vote of 3-2-1-1 (three to deny, two to grant, one took no part, one seat vacant), denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Division’s ruling. As the Resolution was not concurred in by a majority (four votes) of all COMELEC members, a re-deliberation was conducted per COMELEC Rules. After re-deliberation, the en banc issued an Order dated January 28, 2015, with a 3-2-2 vote (three to deny, two to grant, two took no part/abstained), dismissing the entire Petition for Disqualification for “failure to obtain the necessary majority votes after re-deliberation/rehearing.” Legaspi assailed this Order before the Supreme Court. The Court initially dismissed his petition in a September 1, 2015 Decision, prompting Legaspi to file the instant motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

How should rulings of the COMELEC en banc be treated when it fails to muster the four (4) votes required by the Constitution to either grant or deny a motion for reconsideration of a Division ruling?

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the motion for reconsideration, REVERSED and SET ASIDE its September 1, 2015 Decision, and GRANTED the petition. The Court held that the doctrine established in Mendoza v. COMELEC—which mandated the dismissal of the entire original action before the COMELEC if the en banc fails to reach the required majority vote on reconsideration—is unconstitutional and must be abandoned. The correct procedure, as outlined in Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, is that when the en banc is equally divided or cannot obtain the necessary majority on a motion for reconsideration, the motion shall be denied. Consequently, the Division’s ruling, which granted the petition and disqualified the private respondents, stands affirmed. The Court ruled that the COMELEC en banc’s January 28, 2015 Order dismissing the entire petition was invalid. The failure of the movants (private respondents) to secure the constitutionally required four votes to reverse the Division’s decision means their motion for reconsideration is deemed denied, and the Division’s favorable ruling for Legaspi is reinstated.