G.R. No.

122013 March 26, 1997

RAMIREZ vs COMELEC

FACTS:

For losing in the election of May 8, 1995, private respondent filed in the COMELEC a
petition for the correction of what he claimed was manifest error in the Statement of Votes.

On August 1, 1995, the COMELEC en banc issued its first questioned resolution,

directing the MBC to reconvene and recompute the votes in the Statement of Votes and
proclaim the winning candidate for vice mayor of Giporlos, Eastern Samar accordingly.

Petitioner and public respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers filed separate "motions
for clarification." On September 26, 1995, the COMELEC en banc issued its second
questioned resolution, reiterating its earlier ruling. It rejected the MBC's recommendation to
resort to election returns.

Hence this petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking the annulment of the two

resolutions, dated August 1, 1995 and September 26, 1995, of the Commission on Elections,
and the reinstatement instead of the May 10, 1995 proclamation of petitioner Jose C. Ramirez
as the duly elected vice mayor of Giporlos, Eastern Samar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction because the case was resolved
by it without having been first acted upon by any of its divisions.

HELD:

The Constitution provides that “The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
election 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 Comelec en banc.”

On the other hand, Rule 27, §5 of the 1993 Rules of the COMELEC expressly provides
that pre-proclamation controversies involving, inter alia, manifest errors in the tabulation or
tallying of the results may be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc.

However, petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction of the

COMELEC en banc. Not only did he participate in the proceedings below but he also sought
affirmative relief from the COMELEC en banc by filing a Counter-Protest. It is certainly not
right for a party taking part in proceedings and submitting his case for decision to attack the
decision later for lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal because the decision turns out to be
adverse to him.

G.R. No. 93986, December 22, 1992

LOONG vs COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner filed with COMELEC his certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-
Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region. 16 days after the election, respondent
Ututalum filed before the COMELEC a petition seeking to disqualify petitioner on the
ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age.
Petitioner Loong sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the respondent
COMELEC has no jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was denied by the COMELEC in a
resolution which is the subject of this petition. Petitioner Loong contends that petition to
cancel his certificate of candidacy was filed out of time because it was filed beyond the 25-
day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not cancellation of certificate of candidacy was filed within the period
prescribed by law.

HELD:

No. The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum clearly does not fall under the
grounds of disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy.
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the filing of the petition at any time after the last
day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation, is
merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission which, although a constitutional
body, has no legislative powers. Thus, it cannot supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code which is a legislative enactment.

GR Nos. 140850-51 May 4, 2000

FAELNAR vs PEOPLE

FACTS:

Faelnar filed a certificate for candidacy for the position of Barangay Chairman of
Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu in the 1997 barangay elections. The day after he filed his
certificate, a basketball tournament, opened at the Guadalupe Sports Complex. Due to the
basketball tournament, Antonio Luy filed a complaint for electioneering against Faelnar and
Cecilio Gillamac. It alleged that: 1) during the game, a streamer with Faelnar’s name was
placed on the facade of the complex, 2) his name was repeatedly mentioned over the
microphone, 3) the tournament was widely published in the local newspaper, and 4) a raffle
sponsored by Gillamac was held. Faelnar claimed that it was purely a sporting event for the
benefit of the youth. Atty. Cadungog, election officer of Cebu, investigated the complaint and
recommended the dismissal of the charges. The law department of COMELEC recommended
the filing of the case. The COMELEC en banc resolved to dismiss the case. Antonio Luy
filed an MR, and COMELEC ordered the filing of the necessary informations. Faelnar and
Gillamac were formally charged of criminal cases in the RTC. Petitioner moved to quash the
information, or a reinvestigation, due to the fact that the decision of the COMELEC is final
and executory and could no longer be reconsidered.

ISSUE:

Whether the first resolution of COMELEC was final executory and could not be
reconsidered?

Held:

The first resolution of COMELEC (dismissing the case against Faelnar) was not final and
may be subject to a Motion for Reconsideration.

Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the 1988 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provide for an
exception in what pleadings are not allowed: “motion for reconsideration of an en banc
ruling, resolution, order or decision, except in election offense cases” An MR of a ruling,
resolution or decision of the COMELEC en banc is allowed in cases involving election
offenses. There is no question that what is involved in this case is a resolution in an election
offense. Therefore, an MR is allowed under the Rules. Faelnar, likewise, invokes Rule 34,
Section 10 of the same Rules. However, this section does not apply to investigations
conducted by COMELEC, but to the resolutions of the State Prosecutor, or Provincial or City
Fiscal, who has the delegated power to conduct preliminary investigation of election offense
cases. But if COMELEC conducts the investigation through its own investigating officer, the
section does not apply.

However, even if it was final, Faelnar’s motion to quash was not the proper remedy as it
was an attempt to circumvent a final resolution of the COMELEC. The proper remedy would
have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, which must be filed within 30 days from
notice of judgment. In this case, Faelnar filed his motion to quash more than a year after.