Santos v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jeffrey L. Santos (Santos) and Macario E. Asistio III (Asistio) were candidates for Councilor in Caloocan City in the May 10, 2004 Elections. Asistio was proclaimed councilor-elect, having garnered 45,163 votes against Santos' 44,558 votes. Procedural History: Santos filed a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation with the COMELEC, alleging "dagdag-bawas" (vote padding and shaving) and claiming he obtained more votes than Asistio based on NAMFREL returns and poll watcher certificates. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling that the submitted documents were inadmissible and that Santos should have filed a pre-proclamation controversy or an election protest. Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 7257, an omnibus resolution on pending cases, which did not include SPC No. 04-233 in its list of active cases. Santos filed a motion for reconsideration of the First Division's resolution with the COMELEC En Banc. The Petition: Santos filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing both the COMELEC First Division's Resolution and COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 7257. Asistio countered that Santos was guilty of forum shopping, as the petition was filed while Santos' motion for reconsideration was still pending before the COMELEC En Banc.
Issue(s)
Whether Santos is guilty of forum shopping. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SPC No. 04-233. Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding SPC No. 04-233 from the list of cases annexed to Resolution No. 7257.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that Santos was guilty of forum shopping. He filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court while his motion for reconsideration was still pending before the COMELEC En Banc. The petition explicitly assailed both resolutions, and it was only after Asistio pointed out the pendency of the motion for reconsideration that Santos belatedly claimed to only challenge COMELEC Resolution No. 7257. Santos' failure to disclose the pending motion for reconsideration and the subsequent denial thereof before the COMELEC En Banc constituted forum shopping, a ground for summary dismissal. On the issue of whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SPC No. 04-233: The Court noted that had it been informed of the pending motion for reconsideration, the petition would have been dismissed outright for premature filing. Since Santos did not elevate the denial of his motion for reconsideration to the Supreme Court, that order became final and executory. Therefore, the issue of whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SPC No. 04-233 was rendered moot by the finality of its resolution. On the issue of whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding SPC No. 04-233 from the list of cases annexed to Resolution No. 7257: The Court found this issue to be moot. Contrary to Santos' assertion, the exclusion of SPC No. 04-233 from the list annexed to Resolution No. 7257 did not mean it was dismissed outright. The COMELEC First Division had already resolved the case, and the COMELEC En Banc had accepted, considered, and disposed of Santos' motion for reconsideration. Thus, the COMELEC had indeed acted upon the case, rendering the question of its exclusion from the omnibus resolution moot.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court while a motion for reconsideration is pending before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) constitutes forum shopping, warranting summary dismissal. Furthermore, the exclusion of a case from the list of active cases annexed to COMELEC Resolution No. 7257 does not automatically signify dismissal if the COMELEC has already acted upon and resolved the case, rendering the issue of exclusion moot.