Patalinghug vs. Commission on Elections

A petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 is the proper and timely remedy to assail a COMELEC Omnibus Resolution that excludes a pre-proclamation case from the list of cases that shall continue after the beginning of the term of the office involved, regardless of whether a COMELEC division has yet to issue a definitive ruling in the main case or the COMELEC en banc has yet to act on a motion for reconsideration. However, for the petition to prosper, the petitioner must sufficiently show that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolution.

The petitioners were candidates for local positions (mayor, vice-mayor, and councilor) in Lapu-Lapu City during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections. At the start of and during the canvassing of votes, they questioned the composition of the Board of Canvassers (BOC) and objected to the inclusion of several election returns. This dispute is governed by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) and R.A. No. 7166, which provide the framework for pre-proclamation cases and the circumstances under which such cases may continue after the beginning of the term of the office involved.

The petitioners were candidates for local positions in Lapu-Lapu City in the May 14, 2007 national and local elections. At the start of and during the canvassing, they questioned the composition of the Board of Canvassers (BOC) and objected to the inclusion of several election returns. As the BOC ruled against them, petitioners filed their notices of appeal and initiated a Pre-Proclamation Petition with the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 07-011, seeking the declaration of the composition and proceedings of the BOC as illegal. They also filed an Appeal, docketed as SPC No. 07-180, praying for the non-inclusion in the canvass of 182 election returns on alleged grounds under Sections 243 (b), (c) and (d), and 214 of the Omnibus Election Code.

On May 25, 2007, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order in Ref. No. 07-028 directing the BOC to proclaim the winning candidates in the official canvass. The petitioners alleged they received a copy of this Order on May 27, 2007. On the following day, May 26, 2007, the BOC proclaimed private respondents as the duly elected officials of Lapu-Lapu City. Dissatisfied, petitioners moved, in SPC No. 07-180, for the recall and/or nullification of the said proclamation on May 29, 2007.

On June 4, 2007, the COMELEC First Division in SPC No. 07-011 rendered a Resolution dismissing the said case, which petitioners alleged they received on June 15, 2007. Aggrieved, petitioners on June 26, 2007 moved for the reconsideration of the said Resolution. Consequently, on June 28, 2007, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 8212, the Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases, which petitioners alleged they received on July 12, 2007. In the said Resolution, petitioners' cases—SPC Nos. 07-011 and 07-180—were not included in the list of pre-proclamation cases that shall remain active after June 30, 2007 pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166.

Discontented with the said COMELEC issuances, petitioners, on July 26, 2007, instituted the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioners raised grounds including that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their appeal in SPC No. 07-011, in issuing the May 25, 2007 Order, and in issuing Resolution No. 8212.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge COMELEC Resolution No. 8212, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolution.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners argued that the COMELEC committed serious and reversible error and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing their appeal in SPC No. 07-011, in issuing the May 25, 2007 Order, and in issuing Resolution No. 8212, which they characterized as an omnibus dismissal of pending cases for being arbitrary and for want of factual and legal basis.

• Wrong Recourse: Respondents countered that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 could not be questioned via a petition for certiorari because it was not issued in the COMELEC's exercise of quasi-judicial functions, but rather in the exercise of its power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections as enunciated in Section 52 of the OEC.
• Belated Filing: Respondents argued that the petition was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period for questioning via certiorari final orders and resolutions of the COMELEC.
• Merits of the Dismissal: Respondents contended that the COMELEC correctly dismissed SPC No. 07-011 because the BOC was properly composed, and no ground was ever advanced to show any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings. They also argued that the alleged instances of illegality were not raised in the first instance before the BOC.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 is the proper remedy to assail COMELEC Resolution No. 8212, which excluded the petitioners' pre-proclamation cases from the list of active cases.
• Timeliness of the Petition: Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the challenged resolutions, particularly Resolution No. 8212.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Yes. A petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 is the proper remedy to assail COMELEC Resolution No. 8212, as the resolution was issued in the exercise of the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166.
• Timeliness of the Petition: Yes. The petition was timely filed within the 30-day reglementary period under Rule 64, notwithstanding the petitioners' erroneous invocation of the 60-day period under Rule 65.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The petition was dismissed because the petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding their cases from the list of those that shall continue.

• Propriety of Certiorari: The Court clarified that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 is an issuance in the exercise of the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function. The resolution was issued pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, which provides that pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved, but proceedings may continue when the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious. The determination of the merits of a pre-proclamation case involves the exercise of adjudicatory powers, as the COMELEC examines and weighs the parties' pieces of evidence vis-à-vis their respective arguments. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, it is deemed quasi-judicial. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was the correct remedy.
• Timeliness of the Petition: The Court noted that the petitioners erroneously captioned their petition as one under Rule 65 and invoked the 60-day reglementary period rather than the 30-day period in Rule 64. However, the Court was disinclined to dismiss the petition based only on these alleged errors because, in reality, the petitioners filed a Rule 64 cum Rule 65 petition within the 30-day reglementary period. The Court also addressed the confusion among candidates and election law practitioners brought about by the issuance of COMELEC resolutions pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, particularly when there is no definitive ruling by the COMELEC division or en banc.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court held that for an action for certiorari to prosper, there must be a showing that the COMELEC acted with "grave abuse of discretion," which means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. In the present case, the petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding their cases from the list of those that shall continue. Apart from the petitioners' bare allegations, the record was bereft of any evidence to prove that their pre-proclamation cases appear meritorious. Under Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, the proceedings may continue when "on the basis of the evidence thus far presented," the COMELEC determines that the pre-proclamation petition appears meritorious. The Court also noted that with the proclamation of the winning candidates, the question of whether the petition raised issues proper for a pre-proclamation controversy was already of no consequence, since the well-entrenched rule is that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is no longer viable, the more appropriate remedy being a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.

• Quasi-judicial function — A power is deemed quasi-judicial where it rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212, issued pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, was an exercise of the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function, as it involved the determination of the merits of pre-proclamation cases.
• Grave abuse of discretion — Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. The Court applied this doctrine in dismissing the petition, as the petitioners failed to show that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in excluding their cases from the list of active cases.
• Guidelines for assailing COMELEC resolutions under Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 — The Court laid down the following guidelines: (1) if a pre-proclamation case is excluded from the list of those that shall continue, the remedy is to timely file a certiorari petition assailing the Omnibus Resolution under Rules 64 and 65, regardless of whether a COMELEC division is yet to issue a definitive ruling or the en banc is yet to act on a motion for reconsideration; (2) if a pre-proclamation case is dismissed by a COMELEC division and, on the same date of dismissal or within the period to file a motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc excluded the case from the list, the remedy is also to timely file a certiorari petition assailing the Omnibus Resolution, and the aggrieved party need no longer file a motion for reconsideration of the division ruling; and (3) if a pre-proclamation case is dismissed by a COMELEC division but, on the same date of dismissal or within the period to file a motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc included the case in the list, the remedy is to timely file a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc.

• "The exclusion of petitioners' cases is, in effect, a denial by the COMELEC en banc of petitioners' pending motion for reconsideration in SPC No. 07-011, and a dismissal of SPC No. 07-180." — This passage explains the legal effect of the COMELEC's exclusion of a pre-proclamation case from the list of active cases, which is central to the Court's determination that the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy.
• "The determination by the COMELEC of the merits of a pre-proclamation case definitely involves the exercise of adjudicatory powers. The COMELEC examines and weighs the parties' pieces of evidence vis-à-vis their respective arguments, and considers whether, on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the case appears to have merit. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial." — This passage establishes the basis for the Court's ruling that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 was issued in the exercise of the COMELEC's quasi-judicial function, making it assailable via certiorari.
• "For an action for certiorari to prosper, there must be a showing that the COMELEC acted with 'grave abuse of discretion,' which means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof." — This passage defines the standard for grave abuse of discretion, which the petitioners failed to meet, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Santos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 164439, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 487 — Cited for the doctrine that the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc of a division's dismissal of a pre-proclamation case, and the simultaneous filing of a certiorari petition before the Court questioning the Omnibus Resolution/list constitutes forum shopping. The Court clarified that this doctrine shall continue to apply to every case with a similar or parallel factual setting.
• Milla vs. Balmores-Laxa, 454 Phil. 453 (2003) — Cited to support the proposition that it would have been futile for petitioners to await the decision of the COMELEC in the main cases and then challenge the same on certiorari before the Court.
• Jaramilla vs. Commission on Elections, 460 Phil. 507 (2003) — Cited to support the proposition that the procedural rule applies only in cases where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and not when it merely exercises purely administrative ones.
• Ambil, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 398 Phil. 257 (2000) — Cited to support the proposition that the appropriate recourse was for petitioners to timely assail COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 before the Court via the special civil action of certiorari, following Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Macabago vs. Commission on Elections, 440 Phil. 683 (2002) — Cited to support the same proposition as Ambil.
• Peñaflorida vs. Commission on Elections, 346 Phil. 924 (1997) — Cited to explain the rationale behind Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, which reflects the nation's deep concern that pre-proclamation disputes be not abused.
• Cipriano vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 158830, August 10, 2004, 436 SCRA 45 — Cited to support the definition of quasi-judicial function.
• Sandoval vs. Commission on Elections, 380 Phil. 375 (2000) — Cited to support the definition of quasi-judicial function.
• Guerrero vs. Commission on Elections, 391 Phil. 344 (2000) — Cited to support the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• Defensor-Santiago vs. Guingona, 359 Phil. 276 (1998) — Cited to support the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• Sison vs. Commission on Elections, 363 Phil. 510 (1999) — Cited to support the rule that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is no longer viable after the proclamation of the winning candidates, the more appropriate remedy being a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.

• Section 16, R.A. No. 7166 — This provision governs pre-proclamation cases involving provincial, city and municipal offices. It provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. The Court applied this provision in determining that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 was issued in the exercise of the COMELEC's quasi-judicial function.
• Section 3, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — This provision states that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of elections cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. The Court referenced this provision in explaining the procedural context of the case.
• Rule 64, Section 3, Rules of Court — This provision prescribes the 30-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari to assail final orders and resolutions of the COMELEC. The Court applied this provision in determining that the petition was timely filed.
• Sections 243 (b), (c) and (d), and 214, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) — These provisions were cited by the petitioners as grounds for the non-inclusion of 182 election returns in the canvass.
• Section 52, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) — This provision was cited by the respondents to argue that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 was issued in the exercise of the COMELEC's power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, not in its quasi-judicial function.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno; Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Ruben T. Reyes, and Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro. Associate Justices Minita V. Chico-Nazario and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. were on official leave.