G.R. No. 170908 - NESTOR SAN JUAN, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION) AND NAPOLEON SELPO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Commission First Division) RESOLVED , as it hereby RESOLVES , to DISMISS the instant appeal for LACK OF MERIT. SO ORDERED . [9] San Juan then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 16, 2004. However, in an Order dated December 5, 2005, the COMELEC First Division denied his motion. The dispositive portion of the order reads: In view thereof, this Commission (First Division) do hereby resolves to treat the receipt on November 3, 2005* by the lead counsel as receipt of protestee-appellant of the resolution denying his appeal, and to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time per Sec. 2, Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure and for lack of verified statement on the date of receipt of the assailed resolution. SO ORDERED . [10] Consequently, San Juan filed this petition where he raises the following issues: I. WHETHER PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC (FIRST DIVISION) COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RESOLVING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND IN REFUSING TO ELEVATE [THE] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE RECORDS OF THE ELECTION APPEALED CASE TO THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC; II. WHETHER RESPONDENT COMELEC (FIRST DIVISION) COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN CONSIDERING AGREEMENT OF PARTIES AS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE IN THE ELECTION PROTEST BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH IN EFFECT CONSTITUTES VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; AND III. WHETHER COMELEC (FIRST DIVISION) COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO RESOLVE THE PETITIONER'S 3RD ASSIGNED ERROR IN APPELLANT'S BRIEF INVOLVING VIOLATION OF INTEGRITY OF BALLOTS IN PRECINCT NOS. 45A-2/45A-3 AFTER COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARDS OF ELECTION TELLERS. [11] The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the COMELEC First Division acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or lack of jurisdiction in denying San Juan's Motion for Reconsideration. Election cases must be heard and decided first in division, and any motion for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. [12] The procedure for disposition of motions for reconsideration in the COMELEC is found in Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 19 state: Rule 19 - Motions for Reconsideration x x x x Sec. 5. How Motion for Reconsideration Disposed Of. - Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc. Sec. 6. Duty of Clerk of Court of Commission to Calendar Motion for Resolution . - The Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the mo