PEDRAGOZA VS.

COMELEC
FACTS:
Petitioner Artemio Pedragoza (petitioner) and respondent Francisco Sumulong,
Jr. (respondent) were among the candidates for Punong Barangay of De La
Paz, Antipolo City in the 15 July 2002 Sangguniang Kabataan and Barangay
elections. Petitioner was proclaimed winner by a margin of 39 votes. Claiming
that irregularities marred the elections, respondent filed an election protest in
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Antipolo City (trial court). Respondent sought
a recount of ballots from 25 out of De La Pazs 103 precincts. Petitioner denied
respondents claim and filed a counter-protest, contending that he was the one
prejudiced by election irregularities. The trial court revised the contested
ballots.
On 20 January 2003, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the election
protest and counter-protest. The trial court noted that petitioner and
respondent raised substantially identical objections to the contested ballots and
other election paraphernalia. After going over these grounds, the trial court
ruled that the objections did not suffice to change the election results.
Petitioner sought reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, listing the ballots
he wanted re-examined. However, in the Resolution of 30 September 2005, the
COMELEC En Banc denied petitioners motion and affirmed the First Divisions
findings. All the five incumbent COMELEC Commissioners, namely, Benjamin S.
Abalos, Rufino S.B. Javier, Resurreccion Z. Borra, Mehol K. Sadain, and
Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. signed the Resolution. Commissioners Sadain and
Tuason took no part, without, however, indicating the reasons for their
inhibition.
Respondent appealed to the COMELEC. The appeal was raffled to the First
Division.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the failure of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason to indicate their
reasons for taking no part in the case annuls the Resolution of 30 September
2005.
2. Whether or not the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in
affirming the First Divisions findings.

HELD:
No. The petition has no merit. We hold that the Resolution of 30 September
2005 is valid and that the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion
in issuing that ruling.
The failure of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason to indicate their reasons for
taking no part in the case does not annul the Resolution. Even if the votes of
Commissioners Sadain and Tuason are disregarded (for whatever reason), a quorum
still remains, with three of the then five COMELEC Commissioners voting to deny
petitioners motion for reconsideration. The more important question is whether,
despite such quorum, the 30 September 2005 Resolution should be invalidated for
failure of the two Commissioners to state the reasons for their inhibition. the failure
of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason to state the reasons for their inhibition from the
30 September 2005 Resolution does not affect the validity of that ruling.
In his petition, petitioner contented himself with making the sweeping charge
that the COMELEC En Bancs ruling is contrary to law, x x x evidence and existing
jurisprudence without substantiating his claim. Perhaps realizing this, petitioner, in
his Reply to respondents Comment, reproduced the grounds he raised in his motion
for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. This does not suffice to sustain his
claim of grave abuse of discretion. The office of a petition for certiorari is not to
correct simple errors of judgment but capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because
of passion or personal hostility.[12] We have gone over the grounds petitioner raised
in his motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc and we find no such
grave error tainting the Resolution of 30 September 2005. Petition dismissed.

ATIENZA VS. COMELEC

FACTS:
July 5, 2005, Drilon, the president of LP announced his party's withdrawal of
support for the administration of PGMA but Atienza, LP Chairman, and a number
of party members denounced Drilon's move claiming that he made the
announcement without consulting the party.
 March 2, 2006, Atienza hosted a party conference to discuss local autonomy and
party matters, when convened, the party proceeded to declare all positions in
the party vacant and elected new officers, making Atienza as the new president
of LP. Drilon immediately filed a petition with the COMELEC to nullify the
elections. Drilon is claiming that the election was illegal because the party was
not properly convened. Drilon also claims that the officers of LP were elected to
a fixed 3 year term that was yet to end on November 2007.
Atienza claimed that the majority of LP attended the assembly and that the
amendments of LP's constitution were not properly ratified thus the term of
Drilon and other officers already ended on July 2006.
COMELEC ruled in favor of Drilon, Hence, this petition,

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the LP, which was not impleaded in the case, is an indispensable
party;
(2) Whether or not petitioners Atienza, et al., as ousted LP members, have the
requisite legal standing to question Roxas election.
(3) Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it upheld the
NECO membership that elected respondent Roxas as LP president;
(4) Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it resolved the
issue concerning the validity of the NECO meeting without first resolving the issue
concerning the expulsion of Atienza, et al. from the party;
(5) Whether or not respondents Roxas, et al. violated petitioners Atienza, et al.s
constitutional right to due process by the latters expulsion from the party.

RULING:
(1) Respondents Roxas, et al. assert that the Court should dismiss the petition for
failure of petitioners Atienza, et al. to implead the LP as an indispensable party.
Roxas, et al. point out that, since the petition seeks the issuance of a writ of
mandatory injunction against the NECO, the controversy could not be adjudicated
with finality without making the LP a party to the case.
(2) Respondents Roxas, et al. also claim that petitioners Atienza, et al. have no legal
standing to question the election of Roxas as LP president because they are no longer
LP members, having been validly expelled from the party or having joined other
political parties. As non-members, they have no stake in the outcome of the action.
(3) In assailing respondent Roxas election as LP president, petitioners Atienza, et al.
claim that the NECO members allowed to take part in that election should have been
limited to those in the list of NECO members appearing in the partys 60th
Anniversary Souvenir Program. Atienza, et al. allege that respondent Drilon, as
holdover LP president, adopted that list in the earlier cases before the COMELEC and
it should thus bind respondents Roxas, et al. The Courts decision in the earlier
cases, said Atienza, et al., anointed that list for the next party election. Thus, Roxas,
et al. in effect defied the Courts ruling when they removed Atienza as party chairman
and changed the NECOs composition.
(4) Petitioners Atienza, et al. lament that the COMELEC selectively exercised its
jurisdiction when it ruled on the composition of the NECO but refused to delve into
the legality of their expulsion from the party. The two issues, they said, weigh
heavily on the leadership controversy involved in the case. The previous rulings of
the Court, they claim, categorically upheld the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over intra-
party leadership disputes.
(5) Petitioners Atienza, et al. argue that their expulsion from the party is not a simple
issue of party membership or discipline; it involves a violation of their
constitutionally-protected right to due process of law. They claim that the NAPOLCO
and the NECO should have first summoned them to a hearing before summarily
expelling them from the party. According to Atienza, et al., proceedings on party
discipline are the equivalent of administrative proceedings and are, therefore,
covered by the due process requirements laid down in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations.