G.R. No. 261344, January 24, 2023
Frank Ong Sibuma, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, Alma L. Panelo, and Stefanie Ann Eriguel Calongcagon, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by Frank Ong Sibuma. The ponencia (main decision) granted the petition, annulling the COMELEC Second Division’s Resolution dated May 13, 2022, which cancelled Sibuma’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of Agoo, La Union, for material misrepresentation regarding his one-year residency qualification under the Local Government Code. The ponencia also annulled the subsequent Certificate of Finality, Entry of Judgment, and Writ of Execution, denied the Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the CoC, upheld Sibuma’s proclamation, and made permanent the Status Quo Ante Order.
Justice Caguioa, in his dissenting opinion, disagrees with the ponencia on two primary grounds. First, on procedural grounds, he argues that the COMELEC correctly found that its Resolution cancelling Sibuma’s CoC had become final and executory because Sibuma’s Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed grossly beyond the prescribed five-day period without a justifiable reason. The COMELEC’s records show the assailed Resolution was electronically served to Sibuma’s counsel’s email on May 16, 2022, making the MR due by May 21, 2022. However, Sibuma’s MR was sent via email on May 27, 2022, at 5:43 p.m., which, per COMELEC rules, is considered filed on the next working day, May 30, 2022—nine days late. The filing fee was also paid only on May 30. Sibuma’s claim that his counsel only saw the email on May 22, 2022, was deemed manifestly absurd. Second, on substantive grounds, Justice Caguioa argues that the COMELEC’s finding of material misrepresentation on residency was supported by substantial evidence, and thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended its ruling.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that its Resolution cancelling Sibuma’s CoC had become final and executory due to the late filing of his Motion for Reconsideration.
2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Sibuma’s CoC for material misrepresentation regarding his residency qualification.

RULING

Justice Caguioa, in his dissenting opinion, rules:
1. On the procedural issue: The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The assailed Resolution became final and executory as Sibuma’s MR was filed grossly beyond the five-day prescriptive period under COMELEC rules (Section 7, Rule 23 in relation to Section 13(c), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure). The MR was legally filed only on May 30, 2022, nine days after the deadline. Sibuma’s excuse for the late filing was unacceptable. The COMELEC’s discretion to suspend its rules under Section 4, Rule 1 is not mandatory, and its choice to enforce its rules, given the gross deviation, cannot be considered grave abuse of discretion. The ponencia’s cited cases upholding COMELEC’s liberality are inapposite, as liberality is discretionary.
2. On the substantive issue: The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its ruling that Sibuma materially misrepresented his residency qualification is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the COMELEC’s factual finding is binding on the Court, and its cancellation of the CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code was proper.
DISSENTING OPINION: Justice Caguioa respectfully dissents from the ponencia, submitting that the COMELEC was correct both procedurally and substantively, and thus, the Petition for Certiorari should be denied.