Lozano v. Yorac
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Oliver O. Lozano filed two special civil actions for certiorari. G.R. No. 94521 sought to review an order denying the motion for inhibition/disqualification of Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac. G.R. No. 94626 prayed for the reversal of the COMELEC en banc resolution dismissing a disqualification petition and criminal complaint for vote buying against Mayor Jejomar C. Binay in connection with the January 18, 1988 local elections. Procedural History: On January 11, 1988, a petition for disqualification was filed against Jejomar C. Binay for allegedly using P9.9 million of municipal funds. The case was assigned to the COMELEC Second Division. Petitioner filed several motions for inhibition/disqualification of Commissioners Yorac and Africa, and for the case to be heard en banc, which were mostly denied. COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 was promulgated on November 3, 1988, providing a procedure for disqualification cases not resolved before elections, referring them to the Law Department for preliminary investigation. The Law Department recommended filing criminal charges for vote buying against Binay. On August 7, 1990, the COMELEC en banc dismissed the disqualification petition and criminal complaint for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 15, 1990, citing a prohibition in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Petition: Petitioner questioned the COMELEC's referral of the case to the en banc without unanimous vote, the denial of due course to his motion for reconsideration without notice, and the grave abuse of discretion in not finding Binay guilty of vote buying.
Issue(s)
Whether the referral of SPC No. 88-040 to the Commission en banc was valid without the required unanimous vote of all members of the Second Division. Whether the minute resolution of August 15, 1990, denying the motion for reconsideration, is null and void for lack of prior notice and promulgation date. Whether the respondent commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not finding respondent Binay guilty of vote buying.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the questioned order and resolutions. The temporary restraining order issued in G.R. No. 94521 was lifted and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the referral to the Commission en banc: The Court held that COMELEC Resolution No. 2050, issued on November 3, 1988, was the applicable law governing the disposition of disqualification cases. This resolution provided that if a complaint was not resolved before the election, the Commission could refer it to the Law Department for preliminary investigation, irrespective of whether the respondent was elected or not. The Court found that Resolution No. 2050 was not inconsistent with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and that as a specific rule, it prevailed over the general rules. Furthermore, the petitioner, having invoked the jurisdiction of the Commission en banc by filing a motion specifically invoking Resolution No. 2050, was estopped from questioning it after an adverse judgment. The Court also noted that Commissioner Andres R. Flores, who initially had a different opinion, clarified his position and acknowledged Resolution No. 2050 as laying down a definite policy. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court ruled that the minute resolution of August 15, 1990, denying the motion for reconsideration, was valid. It cited Section 1, Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which prohibits motions for reconsideration of an en banc ruling. Therefore, the requirement of notice for promulgation of resolutions and decisions under Section 5 of Rule 18 did not apply in this instance, as the motion for reconsideration itself was not allowed. On the grave abuse of discretion in not finding Binay guilty of vote buying: The Court upheld the COMELEC's factual findings and conclusion that respondent Binay was not guilty of vote buying. The evidence presented did not establish with clear and convincing proof that Binay engaged in vote buying. The traditional gift-giving by the Municipality of Makati during Christmas was not refuted, and its implementation by Binay as OIC Mayor at the time did not sufficiently establish an intent to influence votes. The Court emphasized that the charge required concrete and direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence, which was lacking. The Court also noted that the gift packages were labeled "Pamaskong Handog ng Makati," indicating the Municipality as the giver, not Binay. The Court reiterated its consistent holding that it cannot review the factual findings of the COMELEC absent a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a patent and substantial denial of due process.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's dismissal of a disqualification case and criminal complaint for vote buying, finding no grave abuse of discretion and upholding the COMELEC's factual findings. The Court also ruled that COMELEC Resolution No. 2050, which provided a specific procedure for disqualification cases, prevailed over general rules and that a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling was prohibited.