Dueñas v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Henry "Jun" Dueñas, Jr. was proclaimed Congressman for the Second Legislative District of Taguig City. Private respondent Angelito "Jett" P. Reyes filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Procedural History: After initial revision of ballots, the HRET ordered the continuation of revision and appreciation of ballots for the remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 185401) alleging grave abuse of discretion, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The HRET proceeded with the electoral protest. The Petition: The HRET promulgated a Decision declaring private respondent as the winner by 37 votes. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, arguing that the small margin of victory showed the initial revision had no substantial effect, thus the order for continued revision was baseless. Petitioner also reiterated arguments from his earlier petition and pointed out that three Supreme Court Justices who were members of the HRET took no part in the questioned Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the continuation of the revision of ballots. Whether the fact that three Supreme Court Justices who are members of the HRET took no part in the Decision constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 25, 2010 and the Resolution dated March 18, 2010 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in ordering the continuation of the revision of ballots: The Court reiterated the hornbook principle that its jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner, where the abuse is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty. The petitioner's argument that the small margin of 37 votes indicated no substantial effect from the initial revision, thus rendering the order for continued revision baseless, was found to be without merit. The Court previously declared in Dueñas, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal that the HRET was acting well within the rules when it ordered the continuation of the revision of ballots. Therefore, the petitioner could not resurrect claims that had already been finally adjudged unmeritorious. The continuation of the revision of ballots could not be considered grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of Supreme Court Justices taking no part in the HRET Decision: The Court held that the circumstance that three Supreme Court Justices took no part in the Decision cannot be taken as proof of grave abuse of discretion. Rule 89 of the 2004 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal provides that the concurrence of at least five (5) Members is necessary for the rendition of decisions and the adoption of formal resolutions. The HRET Decision dated February 25, 2010 had the concurrence of six of its members. Thus, the HRET was acting in accordance with its rules and cannot be said to have committed any abuse of its discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. Otherwise, the Court shall not interfere with the electoral tribunal's exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner, where the abuse is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty.