Saludaga v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Quintin B. Saludaga and Artemio Balag were candidates for Mayor of Lavezares, Northern Samar in the May 14, 2007 elections. Saludaga was initially proclaimed winner. Balag filed an election protest alleging massive terrorism and misappreciation of ballots, while Saludaga filed a counter-protest. The RTC declared Balag the winner. Saludaga appealed to the COMELEC. Procedural History: The COMELEC Second Division affirmed Balag's win with modification, declaring him the winner by 127 votes. Balag moved for execution pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration. Saludaga filed his own motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC Second Division, in an Order dated September 4, 2009, granted Balag's motion for execution pending motion for reconsideration, citing the briefness of the remaining term. Saludaga filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc and a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 189431). The COMELEC en banc, in a Resolution dated January 20, 2010, denied reconsideration, granted Balag's motion to dismiss, and found Saludaga guilty of forum shopping. This led to another Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 191120). The Petition: The consolidated petitions sought to nullify the COMELEC's September 4, 2009 Order and January 20, 2010 Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the September 4, 2009 Order. Whether the COMELEC Second Division and en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the August 12, 2009 Resolution and January 20, 2010 Resolution. Whether petitioner committed forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition in G.R. No. 189431, annulling the September 4, 2009 Order of the COMELEC Second Division. The petition in G.R. No. 191120 was partly granted, setting aside the January 20, 2010 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc insofar as it granted Balag's motion to dismiss. Respondent Artemio Balag was ordered to cease and desist from performing the functions of Mayor, and petitioner Quintin B. Saludaga was reinstated pending final determination by the COMELEC en banc. The case was remanded to the COMELEC en banc for adjudication on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the September 4, 2009 Order: The Court found the September 4, 2009 Order of the COMELEC Second Division void for having been issued without jurisdiction. This was based on two grounds: first, the order was issued beyond the ten-day period prescribed by COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 for the division to resolve a motion for execution pending motion for reconsideration before elevating the case to the en banc. The ten-day period should be counted from the filing of the motion for execution, not from the filing of the comment. Second, the order was signed solely by the Presiding Commissioner, which is contrary to the amendment requiring orders of substance, such as an order granting execution pending reconsideration, to be cleared by the Division or the COMELEC en banc. Such orders require more than a lone imprimatur due to the stringent requirements for discretionary execution. On the validity of the August 12, 2009 Resolution and January 20, 2010 Resolution: The Court held that the COMELEC en banc erred in denying Saludaga's motion for reconsideration of the August 12, 2009 Resolution and in granting Balag's motion to dismiss. The Court noted that a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. While the appreciation of contested ballots involves factual issues best left to the COMELEC, the procedural errors in the en banc's resolution warranted its setting aside. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court ruled that petitioner Saludaga did not commit forum shopping. It clarified that a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order of a COMELEC division must be resolved by the same division, not the COMELEC en banc. Since the COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction over Saludaga's motion for reconsideration of the September 4, 2009 Order, its subsequent resolution did not constitute res judicata. Furthermore, the mere filing of a separate certiorari case after filing a responsive pleading does not automatically equate to forum shopping, as the core element is seeking a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari after an adverse decision or in anticipation thereof.
Main Doctrine
The September 4, 2009 Order of the COMELEC Second Division granting execution pending resolution of a motion for reconsideration is void for having been issued without jurisdiction, as it was issued beyond the ten-day period prescribed by COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 and was signed solely by the Presiding Commissioner, contrary to the requirement for orders of substance to be cleared by the Division or the COMELEC en banc.