Torres v. Abundo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose Torres and respondent Abelardo Abundo, Sr. were candidates for Mayor of Viga, Catanduanes in the May 10, 2004 elections. Torres was initially proclaimed mayor. Abundo filed an election protest alleging irregularities in 17 precincts, while Torres filed a counter-protest concerning 12 precincts. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Abundo, declaring him the elected mayor with 4,230 votes against Torres' 4,121 votes, and ordered Torres to vacate the position. The RTC granted Abundo's motion for execution pending appeal, citing "good reasons" such as the establishment of Abundo's right to the office and the remaining short tenure of the mayoralty. Torres filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's order. The COMELEC First Division issued a Temporary Restraining Order and later a preliminary injunction directing Torres to continue performing his functions as mayor. Subsequently, the COMELEC First Division dismissed Torres' petition for failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed order and for failure to file a motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC En Banc denied Torres' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the COMELEC En Banc's Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration and the COMELEC First Division's Resolution dismissing the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it failed to consider that the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration was due to the extreme urgency of the matter. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition on a technical ground despite having given due course to the petitioner's prayer for a temporary restraining order and injunction. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed/refused to rule on the alleged "good reasons" proffered by the respondent in his motion for execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution dated May 6, 2006 of the COMELEC First Division dismissing the petition for lack of merit, and the Resolution dated August 18, 2006 of the COMELEC En Banc denying reconsideration thereof, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is generally a condition sine qua non for filing a petition for certiorari. While exceptions exist, such as urgency, the petitioner's claim of urgency in this case was found to be untenable. The urgency contemplated by jurisprudence is not merely the apprehension of being unseated from office, especially when the prevailing party is merely asserting a right granted by a trial court's decision. The petitioner's reliance on Government of the United States of America v. Purganan was misplaced due to differing factual circumstances, particularly the extreme urgency in Purganan to prevent escape, which was absent here. The COMELEC's dismissal of the petition for failure to comply with this procedural requirement was in accordance with its rules and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of dismissal on technical grounds despite granting TRO/injunction: The Court clarified that granting a preliminary injunction or TRO is a provisional remedy aimed at preserving the status quo pending the resolution of the main case. It does not preclude the subsequent dismissal of the petition if it is found to be procedurally or substantially infirm. The COMELEC's initial grant of a TRO and injunction was an exercise of its discretion to maintain the status quo while it examined the petition, but it did not signify an endorsement of the petition's merits or a waiver of procedural requirements. Therefore, the dismissal on technical grounds was not an abuse of discretion. On the issue of "good reasons" for execution pending appeal: The Court affirmed the COMELEC's finding that the "good reasons" cited by the RTC were sufficient to justify execution pending appeal. These reasons included giving substance to the people's mandate, the fact that the RTC had established the protestant's right to the office, and the short remaining tenure of the mayoralty, which meant the people had the right to be governed by their chosen official. The Court reiterated that a combination of factors such as the public interest, the will of the electorate, the shortness of the remaining term, and the length of time the contest has been pending can constitute "good reasons" for execution pending appeal, consistent with established jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari before the COMELEC is dismissible for failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed order and for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order, unless exceptions apply. The urgency contemplated by jurisprudence for dispensing with a motion for reconsideration must be more than the mere apprehension of being unseated from office.