Jumamil v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections in Victoria, Northern Samar. Petitioners Teodoro M. Jumamil and Graciano Centino ran for Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively, while petitioners Aniceto Castillo, Orlano Millano, and Faustino Francisco ran for Sangguniang Bayan Board Member. They alleged election anomalies, irregularities, and fraud committed by the proclaimed winning candidates, private respondents Nicolas Purog, Jr. (Mayor), Dolores Orquin-Verde (Vice-Mayor), and Arturo Aliluyah, John A. Medice, Rufino A. Subiaga, and Felix G. Aucente, Jr. (Board Members). 2. Procedural History: Following the proclamation of private respondents on August 11, 2004, petitioners filed individual election protest cases (EPC Nos. A-82 to A-86) on August 24, 2004, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23. The RTC, in a Resolution dated November 9, 2004, denied the private respondents' motion to dismiss and their prayer for a hearing or pre-trial before the revision of ballots. This denial was reiterated in an Order dated November 16, 2004, denying their motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, private respondents elevated the matter to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) via Petitions for Certiorari, seeking to annul the RTC's denial and to suspend the ballot revision proceedings. 3. The Petition: The present consolidated Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus were filed under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the COMELEC's February 12, 2005 Order, which granted private respondents' motion for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, thereby enjoining the RTC from proceeding with the trial of the election protest cases. Petitioners argue that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing this injunction while deliberating on the petitions filed by private respondents. The Supreme Court noted that the COMELEC subsequently dismissed the petitions filed by private respondents and lifted the injunctions, directing the RTC to proceed with the ballot revision, rendering the petitioners' current petitions moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. Whether the COMELEC's assailed Order is a final and appealable order under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court; and the procedural requirement of exhausting remedies and the mootness of the petitions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated Petitions for Certiorari for utter lack of merit and because they have already become moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the nature of the COMELEC's order: The Court held that the assailed Order of the COMELEC, which granted a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend the revision proceedings ordered by the RTC, was not a final order or resolution contemplated by Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court clarified that its power to review COMELEC decisions via certiorari under Rule 64 is limited to final orders, rulings, and decisions rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. An interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court via certiorari. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC's power to issue injunctions in election cases is not absolute and must be exercised with circumspection. In this case, the COMELEC's issuance of the injunction effectively halted the proceedings before the RTC, which the Supreme Court found to be an improvident exercise of its power, especially when the underlying petitions before the COMELEC were subsequently dismissed. On the issue of the finality of the COMELEC's order, the procedural requirement of exhausting remedies, and the mootness of the petitions: The Court reiterated that Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that there be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is considered a plain and adequate remedy, and failure to avail of it constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition. In this case, the petitioners correctly filed their petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court after the COMELEC issued its assailed order. The Court pointed out that the COMELEC, in subsequent Resolutions, had dismissed the Petitions for Certiorari filed by the private respondents (Purog, et al.) before it, and had lifted the writs of preliminary injunction it had earlier issued. The COMELEC had unequivocally directed the RTC to proceed with the revision of ballots. Specifically, the COMELEC dismissed SPR No. 65-2004, SPR No. 66-2004, SPR No. 67-2004, SPR No. 68-2004, and SPR No. 64-2004 for lack of merit. These subsequent actions by the COMELEC rendered the present petitions moot and academic, as the issues raised by the petitioners had already been resolved in their favor by the COMELEC itself, and the RTC was directed to proceed with the election protest cases.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is the mode of review for a judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). However, the Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law, and failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition.