CASE DIGEST : VELORIA VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992

ATTY. RAMON J. VELORIA, ENGR. RENATO J. ESPEJO, JESUS O. BANDOLIN, SEGUNDO D. BILLOTE, GERONIMO B. ENRIQUEZ, RODOLFO C. MADRIAGA, and SOFRONIO L. MANGONON, and HON. ROMULO E. ABASOLO, as Presiding Judge-Designate, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, petitioners, 

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, composed of DARIO C. RAMA, Commissioner-Ponente, HAYDEE B. YORAC, Acting Chairperson, ALFREDO E. ABUEG, Commissioner, LEOPOLDO L. AFRICA, Commissioner, ANDRES R. FLORES, Commissioner, MAGDARA B. DIMAAMPAO, Commissioner, HON SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, ATTY. PEDRO N. SALES, ENGR. WILFREDO E. SORIANO, ERLINDA C. TAMBAOAN, ENGR. EMILIO M. ANGELES, JR., ELEUTERIO C. SISON, MANUEL FERRER and SANTOS SIBAYAN, respondents.

FACTS : The seven (7) petitioners, Ramon Veloria, Renato Espejo, Jesus Bandolin, Segundo Billote, Geronimo Enriquez, Rodolfo Madriaga and Sofronio Mangonon, as well as the seven (7) private respondents, Pedro Sales, Wilfredo Soriano, Erlinda Tambaoan, Emilio Angeles, Jr., Eleuterio Sison, Manuel Ferrer and Santos Sibayan were candidates for municipal mayor (Veloria and Sales), vice-mayor (Espejo and Soriano) and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Manaoag, Pangasinan, in the local elections of January 18, 1988.

After the canvass of the election returns on January 31, 1988, the private respondents were proclaimed duly elected to the positions they ran for.

Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed Election Protest No. U-4659 which was raffled to Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, then presided over by the late Hon. Alfredo de Vera.

Several proceedings were had, and some issues were brought up to the Court of Appeals and this Court for determination.

Finally, the revision of ballots was set on February 26, 1990 by Judge Santiago Estrella, Presiding Judge of Branch 49, Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, where the Election Protest No. U-4659 was re-assigned by raffle after Judge Vera's untimely death.

On February 26, 1990, during the scheduled initial revision of the ballots in Precinct No. 22, Barangay Licsi, the private respondents, as protestees, filed a "Motion to Dismiss" on the ground that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction

The petitioners-protestants opposed the Motion to Dismiss. On March 7, 1990, Judge Santiago Estrella dismissed the election protest

The petitioners received a copy of the court's Resolution on March 15, 1990. However, instead of perfecting an appeal within five (5) days as provided by law, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 20, 1990. On April 10, 1990, the private respondents filed a "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal" on the grounds

On May 10, 1990, Judge Abasolo gave due course to petitioners' Notice of Appeal.

The private respondents (as protestees) sought recourse in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by a petition for certiorari and Prohibition with a Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order (SPR No. 8-90) to annul Judge Abasolo's order giving due course to the appeal.

On June 14, 1990, the Commission en banc issued the following Order defining the issues:

After a thorough discussion of the issues, the following crystallized as the only issues to be presented for resolution by the Commission, namely: (1) the issue of whether or not a Motion for Reconsideration in electoral cases is a prohibited pleading; and (2) the parties agreed that in case the answer to the first issue is "yes," the notice of appeal was filed out of time and in case the answer is "no," the notice of appeal was filed on time.

On August 2, 1990, the COMELEC granted the petition for certiorari

Hence, this special civil action of Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, filed on August 31, 1990 by the petitioners (protestants below), pursuant to Rule 39, Section 1, COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE

ISSUE : WON the COMELEC Erred in Granting the petition

HELD : There is no merit in this petition for review for the COMELEC correctly found that the petitioners' appeal from the court's order dismissing their election protest was indeed tardy. It was tardy because their motion for reconsideration did not suspend their period to appeal. The petitioners' reliance on Section 4, Rule 19 of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE is misplaced. The "motion for reconsideration" referred to above is a motion for reconsideration filed in the COMELEC, not in the trial court where a motion for reconsideration is not entertained.

The COMELEC, therefore, correctly ruled that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners in the trial court on March 20, 1990 did not suspend the period to appeal since a "motion for reconsideration" is prohibited under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Since the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law

Nevertheless, we must grant this petition for certiorari for the COMELEC does not possess jurisdiction to grant the private respondents' petition for certiorari.

In view of this pronouncement, an original special civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against a regional trial court in an election contest may be filed only in the Court of Appeals or in this Court, being the only courts given such original jurisdiction under the Constitution and the law.