San Juan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nestor San Juan and private respondent Napoleon Selpo were candidates for Punong Barangay of San Ramon, Tinambac, Camarines Sur in the July 15, 2002 elections. The Barangay Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed San Juan as the winner. Procedural History: Selpo filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tinambac, questioning the certificates of canvass in specific precincts and praying for a revision of ballots. San Juan, in his Answer with Counter-Protest, denied allegations of fraud and also prayed for a revision of ballots. The MTC ordered a recount. Subsequently, the MTC rendered a Decision on December 4, 2002, proclaiming Selpo as the duly elected Barangay Captain and declaring San Juan's proclamation null and void, finding Selpo to have won by thirteen (13) votes. The Petition: San Juan appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division, which dismissed his appeal for lack of merit in a Resolution dated October 25, 2004. San Juan filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 16, 2004. The COMELEC First Division, in an Order dated December 5, 2005, denied the motion for reconsideration, treating the receipt of the assailed resolution by lead counsel on November 3, 2004, as the basis for the denial, deeming the motion filed out of time per Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and for lack of a verified statement on the date of receipt. San Juan then filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in resolving the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and in refusing to elevate the motion and records to the Commission en banc. Whether the COMELEC (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in considering the agreement of parties as sufficient to warrant the total absence of reception of evidence in the election protest before the trial court, which in effect constitutes a violation of petitioner's right to due process. Whether the COMELEC (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in failing to resolve the petitioner's 3rd assigned error in appellant's brief involving the violation of the integrity of ballots in Precinct Nos. 45A-2/45A-3 after completion of proceedings of the Boards of Election Tellers.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion regarding the Motion for Reconsideration and referral to the en banc: The Court held that election cases must be heard and decided first in division, and any motion for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. However, in this case, the Court found that San Juan's Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time. His lead counsel received a copy of the COMELEC First Division's Resolution on November 3, 2004, but the motion was filed only on November 16, 2004. Under Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within five days from promulgation. Since the motion was filed out of time, its dismissal by the COMELEC First Division was valid and proper, and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The Court also found no need to forward the matter to the COMELEC en banc, as the result would be the same. The Court cited Cayat v. COMELEC, where a belatedly filed motion for reconsideration was treated as a mere scrap of paper. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion regarding the absence of reception of evidence and due process: The Court found it unnecessary to delve into this issue as the primary ground for dismissal of the motion for reconsideration was its untimeliness. The Court reiterated that the procedural defect of filing out of time rendered the motion invalid, thus obviating the need to discuss the merits of the substantive issues raised in the appeal or the alleged violation of due process concerning evidence reception. The procedural flaw was dispositive of the case at the COMELEC level. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion regarding the integrity of ballots: Similar to the second issue, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address the alleged violation of the integrity of ballots. The procedural infirmity of the Motion for Reconsideration, specifically its late filing, was sufficient reason for the COMELEC First Division to deny it. The Court's focus remained on the procedural timeliness of the motion, which precluded a substantive review of the assigned errors concerning ballot integrity. The resolution of the case hinged on the procedural misstep, not on the merits of the election protest itself.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period is a mere scrap of paper and its dismissal, even without referral to the en banc, does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.