Pedragoza v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Artemio Pedragoza and respondent Francisco Sumulong, Jr. were candidates for Punong Barangay of De La Paz, Antipolo City in the 15 July 2002 elections. Petitioner was proclaimed winner by 39 votes. Procedural History: Respondent filed an election protest, seeking a recount of ballots from 25 precincts. Petitioner filed a counter-protest. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Antipolo City, dismissed both protests, finding that the objections did not suffice to change the election results. Respondent appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Petition: The COMELEC First Division granted respondent's appeal, reversed the trial court's decision, annulled petitioner's proclamation, and declared respondent the duly elected Punong Barangay, finding respondent won by 19 votes after a revision of ballots. Petitioner sought reconsideration from the COMELEC En Banc, which denied his motion and affirmed the First Division's findings. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising two contentions: (1) the COMELEC En Banc Resolution is invalid due to lack of quorum because two Commissioners failed to state reasons for their inhibition; and (2) the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division's findings.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason to indicate their reasons for taking no part in the case annuls the Resolution of 30 September 2005. Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division's findings.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution of 30 September 2005 is valid, and the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the Resolution due to inhibited Commissioners: The Court held that the failure of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason to state the reasons for their inhibition from the 30 September 2005 Resolution does not affect the validity of that ruling. Section 1, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires a member who takes no part in a resolution to state the reason therefor, mirroring Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. This requirement is mandatory, but its purpose is to ensure that all members participate and to hold them accountable for their non-participation. The Court cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, which indicated that the requirement was a way to see to it that all justices participate, and that the explanation is a personalized matter for the judge concerned. Non-compliance with the rule does not annul the ruling but may be a basis for holding the responsible official accountable. The Court further analogized this to the failure of a court head to issue a certification of consultation, which does not invalidate a decision but may hold the official responsible accountable. In this case, even if the votes of the two Commissioners were disregarded, a quorum of three Commissioners still existed to pass the resolution. Therefore, the omission did not invalidate the resolution. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no merit in petitioner's alternative contention that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's claim that the ruling was contrary to law, evidence, and jurisprudence was unsubstantiated. The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari is not meant to correct simple errors of judgment but only capricious and whimsical exercises of judgment amounting to a lack of jurisdiction or arbitrary exercise of power. Having reviewed the grounds raised by the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, the Court found no grave error that tainted the Resolution of 30 September 2005. The COMELEC's findings regarding the revision of ballots and the resulting vote count were affirmed.
Main Doctrine
The failure of members of a collegiate court to state the reasons for their inhibition from a resolution does not invalidate the resolution itself, as the requirement is primarily for accountability of the member and not a condition for the validity of the court's action, provided a quorum exists.