G.R. No. 248005, May 11, 2021
Francis N. Tolentino, Petitioner, vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal and Commission on Elections, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francis N. Tolentino filed an election protest against Senator Leila M. De Lima concerning the May 9, 2016 senatorial elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had procured Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) and other equipment from Smartmatic-TIM under an Automated Election System contract, which was a lease with an option to purchase. A contract provision (Section 6.9) stated that goods still in COMELEC’s possession by December 1, 2016 due to an election contest would be considered sold to COMELEC, which would pay the corresponding price, without prejudice to COMELEC requiring the protestant to shoulder such costs. The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) issued resolutions directing COMELEC to preserve certain election materials and, pursuant to the contract, required petitioner to deposit money to cover the “retention cost” of specific VCMs and CCS laptops he requested for his protest. Petitioner deposited a total of P3,315,785.36. Later, petitioner filed a Motion for Return of Payments, arguing the payment should be returned because he never obtained ownership or possession of the equipment, its use in his protest was limited, and the COMELEC eventually exercised its option to purchase the equipment using government funds. The SET denied his motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Senate Electoral Tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing Resolutions No. 16-141 and No. 16-143, which denied petitioner’s Motion for Return of Payments for the retention costs of the election equipment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed SET Resolutions. The Court held that the SET did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The payment made by petitioner was correctly characterized as a “retention cost,” not a purchase price. The SET’s directive for petitioner to deposit the amount was a valid exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers to promulgate rules for election contests and to ensure the preservation of evidence. The requirement was based on the COMELEC-Smartmatic contract provision (Section 6.9), which was incorporated into the SET’s resolutions. Petitioner voluntarily requested the retention of the specific equipment and complied with the deposit order. The fact that COMELEC later exercised its option to purchase the equipment using government funds did not negate the obligation, as the retention cost was a separate expense incurred due to the election protest. The SET’s actions were in accordance with law and its rules, and no denial of due process or arbitrary action was found. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment but only for correcting jurisdictional errors, which were absent in this case.