Bernardo v. Abalos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 14, 1998, respondent Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., and his son, respondent Benjamin "Benhur" C. Abalos, Jr. (a candidate for Mayor), allegedly conspired with school officials to conduct an all-expense-free trip for Mandaluyong City public school teachers to a resort in Sariaya, Quezon. Petitioners alleged that during the event, Benhur's political jingle was played, participants wore his campaign T-shirts, and Mayor Abalos, Sr. delivered a speech promising the teachers (who serve as members of the Board of Election Inspectors) a 'hazard' pay of P1,000.00 and increased food allowances. Petitioners claimed these acts constituted vote-buying under Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). Procedural History: Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for vote-buying (E.O. Case No. 98-110) with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Director of the Law Department conducted a preliminary investigation and recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. On December 1, 1998, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 98-3208, dismissing the complaint because the allegations were supported only by uncorroborated audio-visual recordings and a photograph, which were deemed self-serving compared to the respondents' evidence. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court on February 9, 1999, seeking to nullify the COMELEC En Banc resolution. They argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Notably, petitioners did not file a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) with the COMELEC En Banc before elevating the case to the Supreme Court, arguing in their reply that such a motion would have been 'dilatory.'
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is premature due to the petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC En Banc resolution. Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for vote-buying for insufficiency of evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The petition is premature because petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Under Section 1, Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of an En Banc ruling is generally prohibited, but an express exception is made for 'election offense cases.' Since the complaint involved vote-buying, which is an election offense, a motion for reconsideration was a 'plain, speedy, and adequate remedy' available to the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to provide the lower body an opportunity to correct its own errors. By bypassing this step, petitioners violated the requirements for a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioners' excuse that the motion would be 'dilatory' was rejected, as the orderly and inexpensive determination of cases requires adherence to procedural rules. On Issue 2: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's dismissal of the complaint. The COMELEC correctly determined that the evidence submitted by the petitioners—consisting of uncorroborated audio and visual recordings and a single photograph—was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6646 (RA 6646) specifically requires that a complaint for vote-buying must be supported by affidavits of complaining witnesses attesting to the offer or promise of money or consideration. Petitioners' own cover letter admitted that no such supporting affidavits were submitted. Consequently, the COMELEC's finding that the respondents' evidence had more probative value was a valid exercise of its discretion in conducting a preliminary investigation.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this remedy should be resorted to before recourse can be made to the courts. Under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, while motions for reconsideration of En Banc rulings are generally prohibited, an express exception exists for election offense cases. Consequently, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a 'plain, speedy, and adequate remedy' that must be utilized before a party can validly file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Failure to do so results in the dismissal of the petition for being premature and for failing to satisfy the conditions precedent for the writ.