oWere among the candidates fielded by the Liberal
Party (LP) to vie for local elective posts in
FELICIANO
P. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
, ALFREDO GERMAR, and ROGELIO P. SANTOS,
JR., respondents.
[G.R. No. 216572. September 1, 2015.]
PEREZ, J
DOCTRINE: Sec. 7 of Article IX-A of the Constitution obliges the
COMELEC to decide all cases or matters before it by a MAJORITY
VOTE OF ALL ITS MEMBERS. When such majority vote cannot be
mustered by the COMELEC en banc, sec. 6, Rule 18 of the
COMELEC Rules shall be observed.
Under Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules, COMELEC en banc
is first required to rehear the case or matter that it cannot decide or
resolve by the necessary majority. When a majority still cannot be
had after the rehearing, however, there results a failure to decide on
the part of the COMELEC en banc. The provision then specifies the
EFFECTS of the COMELEC en bancs failure to decide:
1. If the action of proceeding is originally commenced in
the COMELEC, such action or proceeding shall be
dismissed;
2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed
from shall stand affirmed; or
3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be
denied.
FACTS:
THE PARTIES:
Respondents Alfredo Germar (Germar) and
Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. (Santos) along with
Roberto C. Esquivel (Esquivel)
Norzagaray, Bulacan, during the 13 May 2013
elections.
GERMAR ran for the position of mayor
SANTOS ran for the position of vice-mayor.
Petitioner Feliciano P. Legaspi (Legaspi) was the National
Unity Partys (NUPs) bet for mayor of Narzagaray during the
2013 polls.
THE ELECTION RESULTS AND THE PETITION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
After the votes cast by the Norzagaray electorate were tallied,
Germar won the mayoralty race. Santos also won as the second
councilor of the municipality. Esquivel, though, failed in his bid to
become vice-mayor.
Upon learning abut the results, Petitioner Legaspi immediately filed
before the Municipal of Canvassers (MBC) of Norzagaray a motion to
suspend the proclamation of Germar and Santos as winning
candidates. Such motion was proved to be futile.
Despite the petitioners motion, the MBC proclaimed Germar and
Santos as duly elected mayor and councilor of the municipality,
respectively. A few hours after the said proclamation, petitioner filed
before the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification against Germer,
Santos, and Esquivel on the ground of having engaged in rampant
vote buying. Said petition was assigned to the COMELEC First
Division, composed of Commissioners Lucenito Tagle,
Commissioner Robert Lim and Comissioner Al Parreo.
COMELEC FIRST DIVISION AND SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
The vote of the division was an even 1-1 split with Comm. Tagle
voting in favor of granting the petition for disqualification, but with
Comm. Lim voting against it. Comm. Parreo was not able to provide
the potential tie-breaking vote as he was then absent, hence the
COMELEC First Division called for the constitution of a SPECIAL
FIRST DIVISION through which the First Division as acting member
VICE the absent Comm. Parreo.
The COMELEC SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION, by a 2-1 vote
rendered a resolution:
1. Disqualifying Germer and Santos from their
positions
2. Referring the criminal aspect to the COMELEC
Law Dept for preliminary investigation.
Germar, Santos and Esquivel filed MR with COMELEC en banc in
which at that time, the COMELEC en banc had six (6) incumbent
members. But only 5 members actually participated in the
deliberations and casted votes. Comm. Parreo opted to take no part
and did not vote.
The following were the results of the voting:
1. As to the electoral aspect, the vote was 3-2; 3
members voted in favor of the disqualification of
Germar and Santos, and 2 dissented. Hence, a
majority of at least 4 votes WAS NOT
REACHED.
2. As to the criminal aspect, 4-1; 4 voted in favor of
the referral of the criminal case to the
COMELEC Law dept and 1 dissented. Hence, a
majority vote was reached.
The COMELEC en banc then denied the Motion for reconsideration
(MR) with respect to the criminal aspect but ordering the conduct of
rehearing as to the electoral aspect. After which, the COMELEC en
banc took another vote but still failed to muster a majority consensus
on the electoral aspect. Comm. Parreo maintained his no part
stance, while Comm. Lim also opted to take no part.
Thus the COMELEC en banc issued an Order directing the
DISMISSAL of the electoral aspect pursuant to Sec 6, Rule 18 of the
1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 6. Procedure of 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.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC en banc gravely abused its discretion
when it dismissed the electoral aspect or WON there was
misapplication of the COMELEC Rules.
HELD: NO.
Sec. 7 of Article IX-A of the Constitution obliges the COMELEC to
decide all cases or matters before it by a MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL
ITS MEMBERS. When such majority vote cannot be mustered by
the COMELEC en banc, sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules
shall be observed.
Under Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules, COMELEC en banc
is first required to rehear the case or matter that it cannot decide or
resolve by the necessary majority. When a majority still cannot be
had after the rehearing, however, there results a failure to decide on
the part of the COMELEC en banc. The provision then specifies the
EFFECTS of the COMELEC en bancs failure to decide:
1. If the action of proceeding is originally commenced in the
COMELEC, such action or proceeding shall be dismissed;
2. In appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from
shall stand affirmed; or
3. In incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
The COMELEC en banc treated the electoral aspect as an action
that was originally commenced in the commission. While such only
reached the COMELEC en banc through a motion for
reconsideration of the Special First Division, its character as an
original case filed before the commission remains the same. Hence,
the failure of the COMELEC en banc to decide in this case properly
results in the application of the first effect. The records are crystal
clear that the petition was first filed with the COMELEC and was
raffled to the First Division for decision. It is a fresh petition as it
passed upon no other tribunal, body or entity prior to its filing with the
COMELEC.
The high court ruled that the failure of COMELEC en banc to reach
majority votes on the petition properly results in its dismissal as it
further clarified that ta motion for reconsideration as a mere
continuation of an existing process and does not change the nature
of the case filed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the COMELEC
dismissing the disqualification case filed against a mayor, a vice
mayoral aspirant and a councilor in Norzagaray, Bulacan. The high
court through Associate Justice Perez dismissed the petition for
certiorari filed by defeated mayoral candidate Feliciano Legaspi
against German, Santos and Esquivel.
SEPARATE OPINION:
VELASCO, JR., J., dissenting:
ISSUE:
1. WON COMELEC deliberately misapplied Section 6, Rule 18
of the Comelec Rules of Procedure and Sec 7, Article 9-A of
the 1987 Constitution.
The Dissent:
HELD: YES
Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision. order,
or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Sec.6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides:
Section 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
judgement or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and
all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
In essence, the Court is asked to determine (1) the
number of votes .J necessary for the COMELEC en banc to
resolve a case, and (2) the effect of the en banc's failure to
muster the required number of votes.
RATIO:
An absolute majority is required for the COMELEC en banc to decide
a case. It is clear from the literal wording of Sec 7, Article IX-A of the
Constitution that a majority vote of all its members is required for
the COMELEC en banc to issue a decision or resolution of a case or
matter brought before it. Consistently, Sec 5 (a), Rule 3 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure reads:
Section 5. Quorum; Votes Required. - (a) When sitting en
banc, four (4) Members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum
for the purpose of transacting business. The concurrence of
a majority of the Members of the Commission shall be
necessary for the pronouncement of a decision, resolution,
order or ruling.

As can be gleaned, both the adverted constitutional and COMELEC
rule provisions, require not a simple majority of the participating
members constisting a quorum, but an absolute majority. In concrete,
of the 7-man commission, the vote of 4 members must always be
attained to render a decision, irrespective of the number of
commissioners in actual attendance.
Furthermore, the 3 members who voted to affirm the First Division
constituted a majority of the 5 members who deliberated and voted
thereon en banc and their decision is also valid under the aforecited
constitutional provision.
NB: Even former Constitutional Commissioner Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, SJ, questions the Cua ruling in light of Sec 7 which
says majority of all the Members. He thus concludes that 3
is not the majority of 7. For the foregoing reasons then,
this Court hereby abandons the doctrine laid down in
Cua and holds that the COMELEC en banc shall decide a
case or matter brought before it by a majority of the
members who deliberated and voted thereon.
The Decision of the COMELEC division is affirmed by the failure to
obtain the necessary vote from the COMELEC en banc. (Applying
Mendoza Case)
(QUICK BACKGROUND ON THE MENDOZA CASE)
In Mendoza, he was proclaimed the winner of the 2007
gubernatorial election wherein he defeated Pagdanganan. The latter
filed an election protest, which the COMELEC second division
granted. Mendoza filed MR but COMELEC failed to reach a majority
vote to either grant or deny the motion. COMELEC en banc reheard
the case but was nevertheless unsuccessful. Thus in a 3-1 vote, with
3 votes denying the motion, COMELEC sustained the ruling of its
Second Division. On petition, Mendoza pointed out that because the
necessary majority vote of 4 was not obtained, the election protest
must be dismissed. The court agreed.
It is this ruling in Mendoza that respondents urge the Court
to apply and to sustain the COMELEC en bancs dismissal of
Legaspis petition for disqualification. However, the Court in Mendoza
was deeply DIVIDED insofar as this procedural aspect is concerned.
The strict construction offered by the ponencia offends the
Constitution three times over: (i) it circumvents the four-vote
requirement under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution, (ii) it
diminishes the adjudicatory powers of the COMELEC Divisions
under Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, and (iii) it unduly
expands the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc.
First, the ponencia suggests that in spite of securing
only two (2) votes to grant the motion for reconsideration, the
movants would nevertheless be declared the victors in this legal
battle, in blatant violation of Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
Second, The failure of the COMELEC en banc to muster the
required majority vote only means that it could not have validly
decided the case. Yet curiously, it managed to reverse the ruling of a
body that has properly exercised its adjudicatory powers; and a
motion for reconsideration may be filed on the grounds that the
evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling; or that
the said decision, order or ruling is contrary to law.
Third, to countenance the majority's interpretation of the rule
would expand the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc beyond
constitutional bounds.
Applying the conclusions arrived at in the case at bar, there is no
logical result other than to modify the doctrine laid down
in Mendoza insofar as the effect of the failure to muster the required
majority vote in the COMELEC en banc even after rehearing is
concerned, and to grant the instant petition to set a new precedent to
govern cases lodged with the electoral tribunal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.