G.R. No. 216572 - FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR..

Ruling

Accordingly, we find Justice Velasco's formulation linking the term "proceeding " under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules with " motions for reconsideration challenging the rulings [of a division in election cases]" [34] to be inconsistent with how such term was actually intended to be understood by the COMELEC Rules. Such a formulation, rooted as it was in an isolated analysis of the contested term, is out of touch with the rest of the provisions of the COMELEC Rules. Pursuing Mendoza Ruling Will Not Lead to Absurdity We likewise rebut Justice Velasco's submission that continuing with Mendoza 's interpretation of the first effect under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules is bound to lead to absurd results. To our minds, there is no " absurdity " in the fact that the decision of a division in an election case ceases to be a COMELEC decision as a consequence of the failure of the COMELEC en banc to reach a majority vote on reconsideration. That fact, far from being absurd, is nothing but the natural and logical consequence of the application of the first effect under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules which, in turn, only complements our Constitution. IV All told, we found no indications that the COMELEC en banc had acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC). On the contrary, what we found is that such dismissal was perfectly in accord with the provisions of its own rules of procedure and is consistent with established jurisprudence on the matter. Mendoza , to our minds, remains good law. Certainly, the extraordinary writ of certiorari does not lie here. IN VIEW WHEREOF , the instant petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.