Mendoza v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza was proclaimed the winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the province of Bulacan, defeating respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan. Respondent filed an election protest alleging massive electoral fraud. 2. Procedural History: The COMELEC Second Division initially annulled petitioner's proclamation and declared respondent the winner. Petitioner sought reconsideration from the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration but failed to obtain the required majority vote, leading to a rehearing. Despite the rehearing, the COMELEC En Banc again failed to muster a majority vote. Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc issued an order for the issuance of a Writ of Execution. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion by issuing resolutions without the required majority vote and without proper rehearing. Petitioner also disputed the COMELEC's appreciation of ballots. He further contended that the COMELEC's failure to reach a majority vote should result in the dismissal of the election protest, as per COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 18, Section 6, for cases originally commenced in the Commission.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolution dated February 8, 2010, the subsequent Order dated March 4, 2010, and Writ of Execution dated March 5, 2010, by disregarding its own rules regarding the required majority vote in election protests originally commenced in the COMELEC. Whether the failure of the COMELEC En Banc to obtain the required majority vote, even after a re-hearing, should result in the dismissal of the election protest, considering the protest was originally commenced in the COMELEC.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The questioned Resolution of the COMELEC promulgated on February 8, 2010, the Order issued on March 4, 2010, and the consequent Writ of Execution dated March 5, 2010, are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The election protest of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan is hereby DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the failure to obtain a majority vote: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding its own rules, specifically Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. This rule clearly states that when the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission. The Court emphasized that the election protest filed by Pagdanganan was originally commenced in the COMELEC, thus falling under the provision for dismissal. On the issue of the necessary consequence of failing to obtain a majority vote: The COMELEC's failure to muster the required majority vote, even after a re-hearing on February 15, 2010, should have led to the dismissal of the protest. The Court found it patent that the COMELEC ignored its own decree and proceeded with resolutions that annulled the proclamation of petitioner Mendoza and declared respondent Pagdanganan as the duly elected governor. The Court reiterated that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure were promulgated pursuant to constitutional mandates to expedite election cases, and the rule on failure to reach a majority vote is a clear implementation of these mandates. The Court distinguished between cases originally commenced in the COMELEC and appealed cases, noting that in the former, failure to reach a majority vote at the En Banc level results in dismissal, whereas in the latter, the judgment appealed from stands affirmed. The Court found that the protest in this case was an original action, and thus, the failure to reach a majority vote necessitated its dismissal. The Court also noted the "unwanted result" of incomplete appreciation of ballots and invalidation on unspecific grounds due to the time constraints, further underscoring the irregularities in the adjudication process.
Main Doctrine
When the COMELEC En Banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had in an election protest originally commenced in the Commission, and a rehearing does not result in a decision, the action or proceeding shall be dismissed, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.