Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro

AQUILES U. REYES vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, BRANCH XXXIX, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ADOLFO G. COMIA, AND THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF NAUJAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO

G.R. No. 108886 May 5, 1995

FACTS:

Petitioner Aquiles Reyes and private respondent Adolfo Comia were candidates for the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. Private respondent moved for the exclusion of certain election returns, on the ground of serious irregularity in counting in favor of petitioner considering that there was another candidate bearing the same surname.  The petitioner was proclaimed as the eighth winning candidate without resolving the petition and took his oath of office.

Private respondent filed an election protest before the trial court alleging that a vital mistake had been committed by the Board of Canvassers in the computation of the total number of votes garnered by petitioner.

The motion to dismiss filed by Petitioner was denied by the Trial Court. The Municipal Board of Canvassers admitted that it had made a mistake in crediting private respondent with only 858 votes when he was entitled to 915 votes in the Statement of Votes. The trial court annulled the proclamation of petitioner and declared private respondent as the eighth winning candidate. 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC and the petition for mandamus and prohibition   to the CA to compel the Sangguniang Bayan to recognize him as the duly proclaimed member. The CA dismissed the petition because of petitioner's pending appeal in the COMELEC. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but his motion was denied. The appellate court's decision became final and executory. On the other hand, the COMELEC dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground that he had failed to pay the appeal fee within the prescribed period.

Petitioner contends that both the trial court and the COMELEC's First Division committed a grave abuse of discretion, first by assuming jurisdiction over the election contest filed by private respondent despite the fact that the case was filed more than ten days after petitioner's proclamation, and second by dismissing petitioner's appeal from the decision of the trial court for late payment of the appeal fee.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the filing of the motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc may be dispensed of by the petitioner?

RULING:

The motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc is required for the filing of a petition for certiorari as provided by Article IX(C), Section 2. Petitioner contention that this requirement may be dispensed with because the only question raised in his petition is a question of law is not correct. The questions raised by petitioner involve the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the facts of this case. The questions tendered are, therefore, not pure questions of law. 

All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be decided by the COMELEC in division. Should a party be dissatisfied with the decision, he may file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. It is, therefore, the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc that, in accordance with Art. IX (A) Section 7 may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.