Dimayuga v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Antonio A. Dimayuga and private respondent Mario V. Magsaysay were candidates for the mayoralty post of San Pascual, Batangas, in the May 10, 2004 elections. The private respondent was initially declared the winner by 1,230 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging various irregularities, including miscounting of ballots, substitute voting, disenfranchisement, clustering of precincts, and erasures in the Statement of Votes. After ballot revision, the RTC declared the petitioner the winner by a margin of 41 votes, invalidating 1,192 ballots previously counted for the private respondent. 2. Procedural History: The private respondent appealed the RTC decision and simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Second Division, assailing the RTC's order granting execution pending appeal. The COMELEC, Second Division, initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the execution pending appeal. Subsequently, on July 4, 2006, the COMELEC, Second Division, issued a Resolution denying the private respondent's petition and affirming the RTC's Special Order for execution pending appeal. The private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, elevating the case to the COMELEC en banc. Amidst a mayoralty controversy where both parties claimed the position, the COMELEC en banc issued a Status Quo Ante Order on October 10, 2006, directing parties to revert to the state prior to the RTC decision and suspending the execution pending appeal. This order was later extended by the COMELEC en banc until the resolution of the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Antonio A. Dimayuga filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the October 10, 2006 Order of the COMELEC en banc. The petition argues that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Status Quo Ante Order and/or Resolution. The petitioner contends that the COMELEC en banc's order was issued pursuant to Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which allows a motion for reconsideration to suspend the execution of a decision, and that the order was interlocutory, thus not subject to review by the Supreme Court under Rule 65.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Status Quo Ante Order and/or Resolution. Whether a motion for reconsideration filed with the COMELEC en banc suspends the execution or implementation of a resolution issued by a COMELEC division. Whether the Supreme Court can review an interlocutory order issued by the COMELEC en banc.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Commission on Elections is ORDERED to finally resolve SPR Case No. 5-2006 with utmost dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Status Quo Ante Order: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The issuance of the status quo ante order was proper under the circumstances because a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Second Division's resolution was timely filed by the private respondent. According to Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a Division, if not pro forma, suspends the execution or implementation of the decision, resolution, order, or ruling. The COMELEC en banc did not find the motion for reconsideration to be pro forma, thus warranting the suspension of the implementation of the Second Division's resolution. The COMELEC en banc's subsequent issuance of the status quo ante order was a measure to maintain the status quo while it resolved the pending motion for reconsideration, which involved a thorough review of a voluminous record. On the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration suspends execution: The Court affirmed that a motion for reconsideration, when timely filed and not pro forma, indeed suspends the execution or implementation of a resolution issued by a COMELEC division. This is explicitly provided for in Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The private respondent's motion for reconsideration was filed on July 5, 2006, following the COMELEC Second Division's resolution on July 4, 2006, thus meeting the timeliness requirement. The COMELEC en banc's subsequent actions, including the issuance of the status quo ante order and its extension, were predicated on this suspension of execution. The Court emphasized that the purpose of such a rule is to allow the COMELEC en banc sufficient time to study the case and render a just judgment without the complication of an already implemented decision that might be reversed. On the issue of whether the Supreme Court can review an interlocutory order: The Supreme Court reiterated that its power to review decisions of the COMELEC, as prescribed in Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, refers to final orders, rulings, and decisions of the COMELEC en banc. The status quo ante order issued by the COMELEC en banc was deemed an interlocutory order, meaning it was a preliminary order made during the pendency of the proceedings and not a final determination of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court, in this instance, would not review such an interlocutory order through a petition for certiorari. The proper recourse for the petitioner was to await the final resolution of the case by the COMELEC en banc before seeking judicial review, if necessary.
Main Doctrine
The COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a status quo ante order when a motion for reconsideration of a division resolution was timely filed, as such motion, if not pro forma, suspends the execution or implementation of the resolution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court will not review interlocutory orders of the COMELEC en banc.