Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and respondent Jose T. Ramirez were candidates for Governor of Eastern Samar in the May 11, 1998 elections. Ambil, Jr. was proclaimed winner. Ramirez filed an election protest (EPC Case No. 98-29) with the COMELEC, First Division, challenging results in 201 precincts. Procedural History: A proposed resolution by Commissioner Guiani, favoring Ramirez, was circulated. Commissioner Desamito dissented, and Commissioner Tancangco initially withheld her vote. Commissioner Guiani retired before the resolution was finalized and promulgated. A purported resolution, signed by Commissioners Guiani and Tancangco with Desamito dissenting, was received by the parties, declaring Ramirez the winner. The COMELEC, First Division, declared this purported resolution a "useless scrap of paper" due to lack of promulgation. Subsequently, the COMELEC, First Division, issued an order setting promulgation for April 6, 2000, but postponed it upon Ambil's motion. Later, Commissioners Tancangco and Javier recommended promulgation of the "Guiani Resolution" despite pending legal issues, suggesting the aggrieved party could seek reconsideration or file a certiorari case. The COMELEC, First Division, then issued an order on June 15, 2000, setting promulgation for June 20, 2000. The Petition: Without waiting for the promulgation, Ambil filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to nullify the June 15, 2000 order and prohibit the promulgation of the "Guiani resolution." He also sought a new deliberation and promulgation.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC, First Division, in scheduling the promulgation of the resolution in EPC Case No. 98-29 acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, considering the nature of the order and the status of the 'Guiani resolution'. Whether the petition for certiorari was filed prematurely due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for prematurity. The COMELEC, First Division, is ordered to resolve Election Protest Case No. 98-29 with all deliberate dispatch and promulgate its resolution within thirty (30) days from notice. The temporary restraining order issued on June 20, 2000, is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the 'Guiani resolution': The Court clarified that the order dated June 15, 2000, was merely a notice of promulgation and not a final resolution on the merits of the election protest. The Court also emphasized that the 'Guiani resolution' itself was void and could not be promulgated. The Court cited several reasons for the void nature of the 'Guiani resolution': (1) Commissioner Guiani had retired before promulgation, rendering his participation invalid; (2) the Clerk of the First Division denied the release or promulgation of the resolution, disowning initials as forgery; (3) the COMELEC, First Division, had previously declared the 'alleged resolution' a 'useless scrap of paper'; and (4) Commissioner Tancangco had expressed reservations before making a final decision. Therefore, the Court could not assume that the COMELEC would promulgate a void resolution. On the issue of prematurity and exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court held that the petition was filed prematurely because the petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available before the COMELEC. The Constitution mandates that decisions of a COMELEC division must be elevated to the COMELEC en banc via a motion for reconsideration before they can be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. This procedural requirement is mandatory in election cases. The petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC division's order setting the promulgation. Instead, he directly filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, bypassing the necessary administrative steps. The Court reiterated that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal to a cause of action and is a ground for dismissal. The exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies were found not to apply to election cases where a motion for reconsideration is constitutionally mandated to elevate the case to the COMELEC en banc.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to review a resolution of a division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is premature if the aggrieved party has not first filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, as this is a mandatory procedural requirement for election cases, barring exceptions not present in this case.