Digest:Alvarez v. Commission on Elections (353 SCRA 434, 2001)

Alvarez v. Commission on Elections (353 SCRA 434, 2001)

Election cases brought before the Commission shall be decided within ninety days from the date of submission for decision. The COMELEC has numerous cases before it where attention to minutiae is critical. Considering further the tribunals manpower and logistic limitations, it is sensible to treat the procedural requirements on deadlines realistically. Overly strict adherence to deadlines might induce the Commission to resolve election contests hurriedly by reason of lack of material time. In our view this is not what the framers of the Code had intended since a very strict construction might allow procedural flaws to subvert the will of the electorate and would amount to disenfranchisement of voters in numerous cases.

Facts: Arsenio Alvarez was proclaimed duly elected Punong Barangay of Dona Aurora, Quezon City. He received 590 votes while his opponent, private respondent Abad-Sarmiento, obtained 585 votes. Private respondent filed an election protest claiming irregularities, i.e. misreading and misappreciation of ballots by the Board of Election Inspectors. After petitioner answered and the issues were joined, the MTC ordered the reopening and recounting of the ballots in ten contested precincts. It subsequently rendered its decision that private respondent won the election. She garnered 596 votes while petitioner got 550 votes after the recount.

On appeal, the Second Division of the COMELEC ruled that Sarmiento won over petitioner. Sarmiento filed a Motion for Execution pending appeal which petitioner opposed. Both petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and private respondents Motion for Execution pending appeal were submitted for resolution. The COMELEC En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the decision of the Second Division. It granted the Motion for Execution pending appeal.

Petitioner brought before the Court this petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when:

(1) it did not preferentially dispose of the case;

(2) it prematurely acted on the Motion for Execution pending appeal; and

(3) it misinterpreted the Constitutional provision that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on Election contests involving municipal and barangay officials shall be final, executory and not appealable.

Petitioner’s argument: the COMELEC violated its mandate on preferential disposition of election contests as mandated by Section 3, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution as well as Section 257, Omnibus Election Code that the COMELEC shall decide all election cases brought before it within ninety days from the date of submission. He points out that the case was ordered submitted for resolution on November 15, 1999 but the COMELEC En Banc promulgated its resolution only on April 4, 2000, four months and four days after November 14, 1999.

 

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC violated its mandate on “preferential disposition of election contests”

 

Ruling: Petition is dismissed. The court is not unaware of the Constitutional provision cited by petitioner. The court agrees  with him that election cases must be resolved justly, expeditiously and inexpensively. The court is also not unaware of the requirement of Section 257 of the Omnibus Election Code that election cases brought before the Commission shall be decided within ninety days from the date of submission for decision. The records show that petitioner contested the results of ten (10) election precincts involving scrutiny of affirmation, reversal, validity, invalidity, legibility, misspelling, authenticity, and other irregularities in these ballots. The COMELEC has numerous cases before it where attention to minutiae is critical. Considering further the tribunals manpower and logistic limitations, it is sensible to treat the procedural requirements on deadlines realistically. Overly strict adherence to deadlines might induce the Commission to resolve election contests hurriedly by reason of lack of material time. In our view this is not what the framers of the Code had intended since a very strict construction might allow procedural flaws to subvert the will of the electorate and would amount to disenfranchisement of voters in numerous cases.

Court finds NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION by the COMELEC. Petitioner avers the COMELEC abused its discretion when it failed to treat the case preferentially. Petitioner misreads the provision in Section 258 of the Omnibus Election Code. It will be noted that the preferential disposition applies to cases before the courts and not those before the COMELEC, as a faithful reading of the section will readily show.

Further, we note that petitioner raises the alleged delay of the COMELEC for the first time. As private respondent pointed out, petitioner did not raise the issue before the COMELEC when the case was pending before it. In fact, private respondent points out that it was she who filed a Motion for Early Resolution of the case when it was before the COMELEC. The active participation of a party coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later impugning the court or the body’s jurisdiction.

Source and Credit to:  ATTY. ALDRIN JOSE M. CANA, CPA. CPA-LAWYER PHILIPPINES. Retrieved May 21, 2020, from legal-opinion