Villarosa v. Festin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jose Tapales Villarosa (Villarosa) and respondent Romulo de Mesa Festin (Festin) were candidates for mayor in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Festin was proclaimed the winner with 20,761 votes against Villarosa's 19,557 votes. Procedural History: Villarosa filed an election protest alleging irregularities, including pre-marked ballots. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after a physical recount, declared Villarosa the duly elected mayor and voided Festin's proclamation, deducting 2,050 votes from Festin. The RTC granted Villarosa's motion for execution pending appeal. The Petition: Festin elevated the case to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) via a Petition for Certiorari. The COMELEC, through its First Division, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the RTC from implementing its decision. Subsequently, a newly constituted Special First Division granted Festin's request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the execution of the RTC decision pending appeal. Villarosa's motion to quash this injunction was denied by the COMELEC First Division through an assailed Order. Villarosa then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's Order and the formation of the Special First Division.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC Special First Division had jurisdiction to issue an injunction, considering the procedural requirement of a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to quash the writ of preliminary injunction, specifically regarding the validity of the Special First Division's composition and actions.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that the formation of the Special First Division was valid and that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court also found the petition procedurally infirm due to the availability of a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and procedural infirmity: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari against a COMELEC division's order is generally premature if a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc is available, as per Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution and COMELEC Resolution No. 8804. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari is a procedural flaw warranting dismissal. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the validity of the Special First Division: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The formation of Special Divisions is constitutionally sanctioned under Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution and COMELEC rules (Resolution No. 7808, as amended by Resolution No. 9636). Resolution No. 9868, designating Chairman Brillantes, Jr., was a valid exercise of COMELEC's power to ensure quorum and speedy disposition. A Special Division is a temporary composition of the existing division, not a separate body, and jurisdiction remains with the First Division. The designation of a 'special' division indicates a temporary capacity of the sitting members.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order of a COMELEC division is procedurally infirm if a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc is available as a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The formation of a Special Division by substituting absent members is constitutionally and procedurally sanctioned to ensure the speedy disposition of cases.