G.R. No. 216572 , September 1, 2015.
FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO GERMAR, and ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Feliciano P. Legaspi and respondent Alfredo Germar were candidates for mayor of Norzagaray, Bulacan in the May 13, 2013 elections, with Germar representing the Liberal Party and Legaspi the National Unity Party. Respondent Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. was a Liberal Party candidate for councilor. After the tally, Germar emerged as the highest vote-getter for mayor, and Santos appeared to have secured a councilor seat. On May 14, 2013, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Germar and Santos as elected. Hours later, Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification (SPA No. 13-323 (DC)) before the COMELEC, accusing Germar, Santos, and another candidate of vote-buying. The COMELEC First Division reached a 1-1 split vote. A Special First Division was constituted, which, on October 3, 2013, disqualified Germar and Santos by a 2-1 vote. Germar and Santos filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc. On July 10, 2014, the COMELEC en banc, with six members but only five participating (Commissioner Parreño took no part), voted on the motion. The vote on the electoral aspect (disqualification) was 3-2 in favor of disqualification, failing to reach the required majority of at least four votes. The vote on the criminal aspect (referral for investigation) was 4-1, achieving a majority. The COMELEC en banc ordered a rehearing on the electoral aspect. After rehearing, the final vote remained a 3-2 split, with Commissioners Parreño and Arthur D. Lim taking no part. Consequently, on January 28, 2015, the COMELEC en banc issued an Order dismissing the electoral aspect of the disqualification case pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Legaspi filed the present Petition for Certiorari, arguing the COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the electoral aspect of the disqualification case (SPA No. 13-323 (DC)) under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules, after failing to reach a majority vote upon rehearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution requires the COMELEC to decide by a majority vote of all its members. Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules provides the procedure when such a majority cannot be had: the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission. The Court held that the disqualification case was an action “originally commenced in the Commission” within the meaning of this rule. The petition was originally filed directly with the COMELEC, not appealed from a lower body. The fact that it reached the en banc via a motion for reconsideration of a division ruling did not change its nature as an originally commenced action. The Court cited Mendoza v. Commission on Elections, which held that for cases originally filed with the COMELEC, the failure of the en banc to reach a majority after rehearing results in the dismissal of the case itself, not merely the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the COMELEC en banc correctly applied the rule and dismissed the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC).