Nepomuceno v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Cesar Nepomuceno, Leon Arcillas, and Ruben Avenido were the official candidates of the Nacionalista Party for mayor, vice-mayor, and member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, in the 1980 local elections. Private respondent Oscar Laserna filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to disqualify the petitioners on the grounds of turncoatism. 2. Procedural History: The COMELEC initially issued a resolution disqualifying the petitioners, which was then challenged by the petitioners in this Court. A temporary restraining order was issued, allowing the petitioners to be voted for, and they subsequently won and were proclaimed winners. This Court then remanded the case to the COMELEC for a full hearing. Petitioners later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing it was a pre-election case, which was denied by the COMELEC. This denial was appealed to this Court, which dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the COMELEC case was a pre-proclamation proceeding. The COMELEC proceeded with the hearing, and after the private respondent presented evidence, the petitioners filed a demurrer to the evidence, which the COMELEC denied. Petitioners' subsequent motions to dismiss and for reconsideration were also denied by the COMELEC. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are before this Court again, alleging that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to an act in excess of or without jurisdiction. Specifically, they contend that the COMELEC erred in refusing to resolve their demurrer to evidence by way of a judgment, in denying their motion to dismiss, and in promulgating a resolution through the act of only one member of a division. They are seeking a review of these COMELEC orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to an act in excess of or without jurisdiction in refusing to resolve petitioners' demurrer to evidence by way of a judgment stating the facts and the law. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioners' motion to dismiss. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in promulgating the resolution of April 16, 1982, through the act of only one member of a division.
Ruling
The petition is denied. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's refusal to resolve the demurrer to evidence by way of a judgment: The Court held that petitioners were misled by the title of Rule 35 of the Rules of Court, "Judgment on Demurer to Evidence." This rule allows a defendant to move for dismissal after the plaintiff presents evidence due to insufficiency, but a denial of such a demurrer is not a final judgment. It is merely interlocutory, as the defendant still has the right to present their evidence. Therefore, the requirement of Section 1 of Rule 36, which mandates express findings of fact and law in a decision, applies only if the demurrer is granted, not when it is denied. The challenged order, being interlocutory, did not require the COMELEC to state the facts and the law on which its denial was based, and thus, no grave abuse of discretion was committed. On the denial of the motion to dismiss: The Court found this issue to be without merit, stating that it had been previously resolved in prior resolutions concerning G.R. No. 54633. The Court characterized petitioners' insistence on raising this issue repeatedly as a dilatory tactic to frustrate the directive for expeditious termination of the case. On the validity of the resolution signed by one member of a division: The Court clarified that Section 3, Article XII C of the Constitution, which pertains to the COMELEC sitting en banc or in divisions, refers to decisions on the merits of a case. The resolution of April 16, 1982, was merely interlocutory, not a final decision on the merits. Therefore, the Presiding Commissioner of the Division was competent to sign such a resolution alone, as per COMELEC Resolution No. 9805.
Main Doctrine
A denial of a demurrer to evidence is merely an interlocutory order and not a final judgment on the merits, and therefore, does not require findings of fact and law as mandated for decisions under Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. Such denial does not preclude the defendant from presenting their evidence.