G.R. No. 139853 - FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO (BRANCH 42) AND ANGEL M. SAULONG.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, petitioner properly filed the instant petition for certiorari with this Court. On September 21, 1999, we required the parties to maintain the status quo ante prevailing as of September 17, 1999, the date of filing of this petition. Before us, petitioner asserts that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: [I] ... IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT RTC'S REFUSAL TO DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S ELECTION PROTEST DESPITE HIS (sic) LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME BY REASON OF THE FAILURE OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO PAY ALL THE REQUISITE FILING FEES. [II] ... IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT'S RTC'S REFUSAL TO DISMISS PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S ELECTION PROTEST DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF HIS PETITION IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE AND ITS FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. [III] ...IN AFFIRMING RESPONDENT RTC'S REFUSAL TO DISMISS THE ELECTION PROTEST BELOW ON THE GROUNDS OF FORUM-SHOPPING AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR REQUIRING A TRUTHFUL CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING DESPITE INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THEREOF. [4] In our view, notwithstanding petitioner's formulation of issues, the principal question presented for our resolution is whether or not public respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not ordering the dismissal of private respondent's election protest. At the outset, even if not squarely raised as an issue, this Court needs to resolve the question concerning COMELEC's jurisdiction. Unless properly resolved, we cannot proceed further in this case. Section 3, Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution reads: "The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite the disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall be decided by the Commission en banc ." Thus, in Sarmiento vs. COMELEC [5] and in subsequent cases, [6] we ruled that the COMELEC, sitting en banc , does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void. As can be gleaned from the proceedings aforestated, petitioner's petition with the COMELEC was not referred to a division of that Commission but was, instead, submitted directly to the Commission en banc . The petition for certiorari assails the trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss private respondent's election protest. The questioned order of the trial court is interlocutory because it does not end the trial court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each othe