Legaspi vs COMELEC

GR 216572; April 19, 2016

Facts:
 Petitioner Feliciano Legaspi (Legaspi) and private respondent Alfredo D. Germar (Germar) both ran as mayoralty candidates
in Norzagaray, Bulacan while private respondent Rogelio Santos (Santos) was a candidate for councilor in the May 13, 2013
elections.
 Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification against private respondents (docketed as SPA No. 13-353). There, petitioner
averred that from May 11, 2013 until election day, private respondents engaged in massive vote-buying, using their political
leaders as conduits.
o As per witness accounts, said political leaders, while camped inside the North Hills Village Homeowners Association
Office in Brgy. Bitungol, Norzagaray, Bulacan, were distributing to voters envelopes containing Php 500.00 each
and a sample ballot bearing the names of private respondents.
o Through military efforts, the vote-buying was foiled and the office, which served as the venue for distribution,
padlocked. The newly-minted Chief of Police, P/Supt. Dale Soliba, and his subordinates then attempted to force
open the office and retrieve from inside four (4) boxes containing the remaining undistributed envelopes with an
estimated aggregate amount of Php800,000.00, but a group of concerned citizens were able to thwart their plan in
flagrante delicto and intercept the said evidence of vote-buying.
 Giving due credence and consideration to the evidence adduced by petitioner, the COMELEC Special First Division, by a 2-1
vote disqualified private respondents from the 2013 electoral race
 The respondents moved for reconsideration before the COMELC en banc but the latter through its July 10, 2014 Resolution
resolved to deny private respondents’ motions
 The adverted Resolution had a vote of 3-2-1-1, as follows:
o three (3) commissioners, namely Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle and Elias R.
Yusoph, voted for the denial of the motion,
o while two (2) commissioners, Christian Robert S. Lim and Luie Tito F. Guia, dissented.
o Commissioner Al A. Parreno took no part in the deliberations and Commissioner Maria Grace Cielo M. Padaca did
not vote as her ad interim appointment had already expired, vacating a seat in the electoral tribunal.
 Since the Resolution was not concurred in by four (4) votes or a majority of all the members of the COMELEC , a re-
deliberation of the administrative aspect of the case was conducted pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure.
 The re-deliberation resulted in the issuance of the assailed Order dated January 28, 2015 with a 3-2-2 vote:
o the previously voting commissioners maintained their respective positions while then newly-appointed
commissioner Arthur D. Lim took no part in the deliberations and abstained from voting.
o Citing the same procedural rule, the COMELEC en banc dismissed the original Petition for Disqualification filed by
Legaspi
 Perplexed as to how he who prevailed before the COMELEC Special First Division can face defeat before the COMELEC en
banc when three (3) commissioners voted to deny private respondents' motion for reconsideration and only two (2)
commissioners voted to reverse the judgment in his favor, Legaspi launched a Rule 64 petition assailing the January 28,
2015 COMELEC en banc Order before this Court. Regrettably, the Court, on September 1, 2015, voted to dismiss the
petition.

Issue: how to treat the rulings of the COMELEC en banc when less than four (4) votes were cast to either grant or deny the motion
for reconsideration pending before it

Held:
 The Court GRANTS petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The September 1, 2015 Decision in the case at bar is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the instant petition is GRANTED.
 Primarily, the Court is called to interpret Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules on Procedure. The provision reads:
o 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 judgment or order appealed
from shall stand affirmed; and all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied." (emphasis added)
 As framed in the September 1, 2015 Decision, the afore-cited provision outlines the effects of the COMELEC en banc's
failure to decide: (pls take note of this babanggitin siya later)
1. If the action or 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.
 In dismissing Legaspi's petition on September 1, 2015, the Court first categorized SPA No. 13-353 (DC) as an action
"originally commenced with the Commission" warranting the entire case's dismissal should the en banc fail to reach the
 required majority vote, regardless of the COMELEC division's ruling. This, according to the ponencia, is the first effect of Sec.
6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as previously applied in Mendoza.
 To summarize Mendoza:
o therein petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza was proclaimed winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the province of Bulacan,
besting respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan). On June 1, 2007, Pagdanganan filed an election protest that the
COMELEC Second Division eventually granted, thereby annulling Mendoza's proclamation. Aggrieved, Mendoza moved for
reconsideration with the en banc, but the COMELEC failed to reach a majority vote to either grant or deny the motion. Pursuant
to its rules, the COMELEC en banc reheard the case but was, nevertheless, unsuccessful in obtaining the required majority vote
to render a valid ruling. Thus, in a 3-1 vote, with three votes denying the motion, the COMELEC en banc sustained the ruling of
its Second Division.
o On petition with the Court, Mendoza pointed out that because the necessary majority vote of four (4) was not obtained by the
COMELEC en banc, Pagdanganan's election protest ought to be dismissed. Agreeing, the Court, on March 25, 2010, ruled for
Mendoza and explained that as an original action before the Commission, failure to muster the required majority vote on
reconsideration would lead to the election protest's dismissal, not just of the motion for reconsideration.

Interpretation of Sec. 6 Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in Mendoza & the September 1, 2015 Decision renders the
rule unconstitutional
 The Mendoza doctrine, as reiterated in the September 1, 2015 Decision, deviated from the 1987 Constitution. Not only
does it circumvent the four-vote requirement under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution, it likewise diminishes the
adjudicatory powers of the COMELEC Divisions under Sec. 3, Article IX-C.
 Under Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution,15 the COMELEC Divisions are granted adjudicatory powers to decide
election cases, provided that the COMELEC en banc shall resolve motions for reconsideration of the division rulings.
Further, under Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution,16 four (4) votes are necessary for the COMELEC en banc to decide a
case.
 This voting threshold, however, is easily rendered illusory by the application of the Mendoza ruling, which virtually allows
the grant of a motion for reconsideration even though the movant fails to secure four votes in his or her favor, in blatant
violation of Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution.
o In this case, in spite of securing only two (2) votes to grant their motion for reconsideration, private respondents
were nevertheless declared the victors
 To exacerbate the situation, the circumvention of the four-vote requirement, in turn, trivializes the proceedings before the
COMELEC divisions and presents rather paradoxical scenarios
o 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
o A motion for reconsideration may be filed on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling;
or that the said decision, order or ruling is contrary to law. If the COMELEC en banc does not find that either ground exists,
there would be no cogent reason to disturb the ruling of the COMELEC division. Otherwise stated, failure to muster four votes
to sustain the motion for reconsideration should be understood as tantamount to the COMELEC en banc finding no reversible
error attributable to its division's ruling. Said decision, therefore, ought to be affirmed, not reversed nor vacated.
o These paradoxes must be avoided
 Under the prevailing interpretation of Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a movant, in situations such as
this, need not even rely on the strength of his or her arguments and evidence to win a case, and may, instead, choose to
rest on inhibitions and abstentions of COMELEC members to produce the same result. To demonstrate herein, it is as
though the two (2) abstention votes were counted in favor of the private respondents to reach the majority vote of four (4).
This impedes and undermines the adjudicatory powers of the COMELEC divisions by allowing their rulings to be overruled
by the en banc without the latter securing the necessary number to decide the case.

The motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc is an incidental matter
 Proceeding to the core of the controversy, we now apply sec. 6 rule 18 at the case at bar
o (refer to the 3 classifications of effects above)
 Classifying the pending case or matter before the COMELEC is a prerequisite to identifying the applicable effect. Here, while
the case originated from Legaspi's filing of a Petition for Disqualification, said petition has already been passed upon and
decided by the COMELEC Special First Division
 Instead, what was under consideration when Sec. 6, Rule 18 was invoked was no longer Legaspi's petition for
disqualification itself but his motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. The pending issue at the time was
not directly private respondents' qualification or disqualification to run for or hold office, but, more precisely, whether or
not the COMELEC division committed reversible error in its October 3, 2013 ruling.
FIRST EFFECT
 For the first effect to apply, the pending case or matter must be an original action or proceeding originally commenced
before the COMELEC. This could take either of two forms: those originally commenced with the COMELEC Division or those
originally commenced with the COMELEC en banc.
 Under Article IX-C, Sec. 2(2) of the Constitution
o actions originally commenced before the COMELEC Division
 consist of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials.
o On the other hand, the cases directly filed with the COMELEC en banc
 are those specifically provided in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, such as petitions for postponement of
elections under Sec. 1, Rule 26, petitions for failure of election under Sec. 2, Rule 26, complaints or
charges for indirect contempt under Sec. 2, Rule 29, preliminary investigation of election offenses under
Sec. 1, Rule 34, and all other cases where the COMELEC division is not authorized to act.
 In this case, while the motion for reconsideration was filed with the COMELEC en banc in the first instance, it cannot strictly
be considered as an "action or proceeding" originally commenced with the commission as contemplated by the rules. The
coverage of the phrase is limited to those itemized in Part V of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
 The first effect would only apply is the tie vote was in the resolution of the action or proceeding originally commenced
before the COMELEC. The first effect cannot be applied in this case as the pending matter when the vote was case was
neither an action or proceeding

SECOND EFFECT
 Cannot likewise be applied herein for it requires that the pending case or matter be an appeal

THIRD EFFECT
 This leaves the court with the third, that the petition or motion will be dismissed in incidental matters
 In the case of League of Cities v COMELEC the court applied Sec. 7 Rule 56 of the Rules of Court
o SEC. 7. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. — Where the court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary
majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original
action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand
affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied
 Free from ambiguity, the plain meaning of the clarificatory resolution is that the motion for reconsideration, being an
incidental matter, is deemed denied if no majority vote is reached. Consequently, the court’s prior majority action in such
cases stands affirmed
 There is no reason why the same procedural principle in League of Cities, cannot find application in election cases. With Sec.
6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure couched in terms that are almost identical with Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of
Court, the interpretation of one ought not deviate from the other.
 In conclusion, Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution bestows on the COMELEC divisions the authority to decide election
cases. Their decisions are capable of attaining finality, without need of any affirmative or confirmatory action on the part of
the COMELEC en banc. And while the Constitution requires that the motions for reconsideration be resolved by the
COMELEC en banc,it likewise requires that four votes must be reached for it to render a valid ruling and, consequently, to
GRANT the motion for reconsideration of private respondents.
 Hence, when the private respondents failed to get the four-vote requirement on their motion for reconsideration, their
motion is defeated and lost as there was NO valid ruling to sustain the plea for reconsideration. The prior valid action — the
COMELEC Special First Division's October 3, 2013 Resolution in this case — therefore subsists and is affirmed by the denial
of the motion for reconsideration.