ROMEO M. ESTRELLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.

429 SCRA
789 (2004)

Rolando Salvador was proclaimed winner in a mayoralty race in May 14, 2001 elections.
His opponent, Romeo Estrella, filed before Regional Trial Court (RTC) an election
protest which consequently annulled Salvador‘s proclamation and declared Estrella as
the duly elected mayor and eventually issued writ of execution. While Salvador filed a
petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), raffled to the
Second Division thereof, Estrella moved for inhibition of Commissioner Ralph Lantion,
but a Status Quo Ante Order was issued. However, Commissioner Lantion voluntarily
inhibited himself and designated another Commissioner to substitute him. The Second
Division, with the new judge, affirmed with modifications the RTC decision and
declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor. Salvador filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which was elevated to the COMELEC En Banc, in which this
time, Commissioner Lantion participated by virtue of Status Quo Ante Order issued by
the COMELEC En Banc. He said that as agreed upon, while he may not participate in
the Division deliberations, he will vote when the case is elevated to COMELEC En Banc.
Hence, Estrella filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether a COMELEC Commissioner who inhibited himself in Division deliberations

may participate in its En Banc deliberation.

HELD:

The Status Quo Ante Order dated November 5, 2003 issued by the COMELEC En Banc
is nullified. Commissioner Lantion‘s voluntary piecemeal inhibition cannot be
countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow a Commissioner to
voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To allow him to participate in the En Banc
proceedings when he previously inhibited himself in the Division is, absent any
satisfactory justification, not only judicially unethical but legally improper and absurd.
Since Commissioner Lantion could not participate and vote in the issuance of the
questioned order, thus leaving three (3) members concurring therewith, the necessary
votes of four (4) or majority of the members of the COMELEC was not attained. The
order thus failed to comply with the number of votes necessary for the pronouncement
of a decision or order.