Sevilla v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Mamerto T. Sevilla, Jr. and Renato R. So were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City in the October 25, 2010 elections. Sevilla was proclaimed the winner with 7,354 votes against So's 6,726 votes. So filed an election protest alleging electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities in twenty percent of the protested precincts and prayed for a manual revision of ballots. 2. Procedural History: Following a recount of ballots in pilot precincts, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Muntinlupa City dismissed So's election protest on May 4, 2011. So filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MeTC denied on May 17, 2011, deeming it a prohibited pleading. So then filed a petition for certiorari with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC Judge for not clearly and distinctly presenting how certain groups of ballots were appreciated. The Comelec Second Division granted So's petition, reversing the MeTC's dismissal. The Comelec en banc, with a 3-3 vote, affirmed the Second Division's resolution, directing a new revision of contested ballots. 3. The Petition: Sevilla filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion by entertaining So's petition for certiorari when the MeTC's dismissal order had become final and executory due to So's procedural missteps. Sevilla contended that So should have appealed, not filed a prohibited motion for reconsideration, and that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Sevilla also argued that the MeTC's dismissal was proper and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition prematurely filed, noting that the Comelec en banc's October 6, 2012 Resolution lacked legal effect due to the 3-3 vote, which did not constitute the required majority. The Court remanded the case to the Comelec en banc for a rehearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to respondent So's petition for certiorari despite the procedural errors committed. Whether the Comelec en banc's Resolution of October 6, 2012, which resulted in a 3-3 tie, has legal effect. Whether a rehearing is required for the Comelec en banc's Resolution of October 6, 2012.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having been prematurely filed and remanded the case to the Comelec en banc for appropriate action. The Court held that the October 6, 2012 Comelec en banc Resolution lacks legal effect as it was not a majority decision. A rehearing is mandated by the Comelec Rules of Procedure when the Commission en banc is equally divided.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Comelec's grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court found that the petition was prematurely filed. The Court noted that the Comelec en banc's Resolution of October 6, 2012, which affirmed the Comelec Second Division's ruling, was a tie vote (3-3). This tie vote meant that the Comelec en banc failed to reach a majority decision, which is constitutionally and procedurally required. Therefore, the assailed Resolution had no legal effect, and the case should have been remanded for a rehearing. The Court cited Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution and Section 5(a), Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, both requiring a majority vote of all members for any decision, resolution, order, or ruling. The Court reiterated its ruling in Marcoleta v. Commission on Elections that a majority vote of all members, not just those participating, is necessary. Since the 3-3 vote did not constitute a majority, the Comelec en banc did not validly sustain or overturn the Second Division's findings, rendering its resolution legally ineffective. On the legal effect of the Comelec en banc's Resolution of October 6, 2012: The Supreme Court declared that the October 6, 2012 Comelec en banc Resolution lacks legal effect because it did not obtain the required majority vote. The Constitution, in Article IX-A, Section 7, mandates that "each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members." Similarly, Section 5(a), Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure states that "The concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Commission shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution, order or ruling." A 3-3 vote, where three Commissioners concurred and three dissented, does not meet this requirement. Consequently, the resolution did not validly affirm the Second Division's ruling nor did it overturn it. It merely signified that the Comelec en banc failed to reach a decision, necessitating further action. On the requirement for a rehearing: The Supreme Court held that a rehearing is mandated when the Comelec en banc is equally divided in its opinion, as provided for in Section 6, Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. This rule states that "When the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard." The Court emphasized that a rehearing provides parties an opportunity to strengthen their arguments and convince the members of the Commission. Citing Juliano v. Commission on Elections and Marcoleta v. Commission on Elections, the Court explained that a rehearing is distinct from a "re-consultation" and requires the participation of the parties. Since the Comelec en banc did not issue an order for a rehearing before Sevilla filed his petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, the case was remanded to the Comelec en banc for the conduct of the required rehearing.
Main Doctrine
A Resolution of the Commission on Elections en banc that results in a tie vote (3-3) lacks legal effect as it does not constitute a majority decision as required by the Constitution and the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Such a situation necessitates a rehearing of the case.