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

FACTS

Petitioner Feliciano P. Legaspi and private respondent Alfredo D. Germar were mayoralty candidates in Norzagaray, Bulacan in the May 13, 2013 elections. Private respondent Rogelio Santos was a candidate for councilor. Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification against Germar and Santos, alleging their political leaders engaged in massive vote-buying from May 11, 2013 until election day, distributing envelopes containing P500 and sample ballots from an office. Despite an urgent motion to suspend proclamation, Germar and Santos were proclaimed winners on May 14, 2013, the same day Legaspi filed his petition. The COMELEC Special First Division, by a 2-1 vote, granted the petition and disqualified the respondents on October 3, 2013, finding substantial evidence including sworn statements of witnesses and voters, police reports, and photographs. The COMELEC en banc, in a July 10, 2014 Resolution, denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration by a vote of 3-2-1-1 (three for denial, two dissenting, one took no part, one seat vacant). As this was not a majority of all COMELEC members, a re-deliberation was conducted, resulting in an Order dated January 28, 2015 dismissing the petition for disqualification with a vote of 3-2-2 (three for dismissal, two against, two commissioners took no part/abstained). Legaspi filed this certiorari petition, challenging the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Disqualification based on its application of its internal rules regarding the required majority vote.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Velasco, Jr. argues that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion. The opinion contends that the COMELEC misapplied Section 6, Rule 18 of its Rules of Procedure. It emphasizes that the initial en banc Resolution of July 10, 2014, which denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the disqualification, had three (3) commissioners voting in favor of denial. The two commissioners who dissented and the one who took no part should not be counted together to form a majority for the opposite action of dismissing the entire case. The opinion asserts that the “no part” votes are not votes in favor of the respondents and should not be construed as such. It further argues that the COMELEC’s final action, dismissing the case despite only two (2) votes clearly favoring the respondents (the two dissenters from the July 10 Resolution), contravenes the constitutional requirement for the Commission to decide by a majority vote of all its Members. The dissent concludes that the COMELEC’s act was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion.