MENDOZA VS COMELEC

FACTS:
 Joselito R. Mendoza was proclaimed the winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the province of Bulacan,
besting Roberto M. Pagdanganan.
 Pagdanganan filed the Election Protest which, anchored on the massive electoral fraud allegedly perpetrated by
Mendoza.
 Upon the evidence adduced and the memoranda subsequently filed by the parties, the COMELEC Second
Division rendered its Resolution on Dec 1, 2009, which annulled and set aside Mendoza’s proclamation as
governor and proclaimed Pagdanganan duly elected to the said position.
 Coupled with a directive to the DILG to implement the same, the resolution ordered petitioner to immediately
vacate the office, desist from discharging its functions and to cause a peaceful turn-over to Pagdanganan.
 Dissatisfied, Mendoza filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc but it issued a resolution
denying the motion.
 He filed the Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on February 8, 2010
 He filed the instant Petition on Certiorari with an Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order and/or a Status Quo Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction directed on the February 8 Resolution
 In their respective Comments thereto, both respondent and the Office of the Solicitor General argue that, in
addition to its premature filing, the petition at bench violated the rule against forum shopping.
 The COMELEC En Banc issued an Order for the issuance of a Writ of Execution for the implementation of Dec 1
2009 Resolution
 Aggrieved, Mendoza filed several motions and a Supplement to the Petition with a Most Urgent Reiterating
Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Order
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the assailed COMELEC Resolution valid

RULING:
 No. The failure of the COMELEC En Banc to muster the required majority vote even after the 15 February 2010 re-
hearing should have caused the dismissal of respondent’s Election Protest.
 Promulgated on 15 February 1993 pursuant to Section 6, Article IX-A and Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution,
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is clear on this matter.
 Section 6, Rule 18 of COMELEC Rules and Procedure is categorical.
“Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided.—When the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or
the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the
action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall
be denied.”
 The propriety of applying Section 6 Rule 18 of COMELEC according to its literal tenor cannot be gainsaid.
 If what is brought before the COMELEC is an original protest invoking the original jurisdiction of the Commission, the
protest, as one whole process, is first decided by the division, which process is continued in the banc if there is a
motion for reconsideration of the division ruling. If no majority decision is reached in the banc, the protest, which is
an original action, shall be dismissed.
 The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is patent in the fact that despite the existence in its books of the
clearly worded Section 6 of Rule 18, it completely ignored and disregarded its very own decree and proceeded with
the questioned Resolution annulling the proclamation of petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza as the duly elected governor
of Bulacan, declaring respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan as the duly elected governor, and ordering petitioner
Joselito R. Mendoza to cease and desist from performing the functions of the Governor of Bulacan and to vacate
said office in favor of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan
 The petition is GRANTED.