G.R. No. 125950 - CIPRIANO B. PEÑAFLORIDA, AND CATALINO CORDERO, VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANGELES SIMORA, ALICE VARGAS, AND MELCHOR TRONCO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, if the proceedings were suspended by virtue of pending pre-proclamation cases; 4. All petitions for disqualification, failure of elections or analogous cases, not being pre-proclamation controversies and, therefore, not governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and particularly, by the second paragraph of Sec. 16, Republic Act No. 7166, shall remain active cases, the proceedings to continue beyond June 30, 1995, until the issues therein are finally resolved by the Commission; and 5. All remaining pre-proclamation cases, which on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, appear meritorious and/or are subject of orders by the Supreme Court or this Commission in petitions for certiorari brought respectively to them thereby requiring the proceedings therein to continue beyond 30 June 1995, until they are finally resolved. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the First Division of the COMELEC, in its order of August 2, 1995. The COMELECs First Division reiterated the Omnibus Resolution of the COMELEC en banc considering petitioners pre-proclamation case terminated and the ruling of the board of canvassers to have been affirmed, without prejudice to the filing by petitioners of an election protest. On August 11, 1995 petitioners moved for a reconsideration, arguing that their case did not fall within the terms of the resolution and that in any event it was not their fault that their case had been unresolved until it was overtaken by the issuance of the Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases. Petitioners claimed that the fact was that their petition had been pending before the board of canvassers since May 14, 1995. The First Division referred the motion to the COMELEC en banc although expressing its opinion that petitioners remedy was to file an election protest as the winners had already been proclaimed. On July 25, 1996, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the First Divisions order and considered SPC Case No. 95-059 terminated pursuant to its Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases dated June 29, 1995. Hence, this special civil action. Petitioners charge the COMELEC with having gravely abused its discretion in considering their case terminated, contending that in fact it was the COMELECs First Division which failed to resolve their case within five days as provided in §19 of R.A. No. 7166 and that because of its inaction their case was overtaken by the promulgation of the Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases. Petitioners claim that this was a denial of due process and constituted grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The contention is without merit. The resolution in question of the COMELEC was adopted pursuant to §16 of R.A. No. 7166 which provides as follows: §16. Pre-proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and Municipal Offices.- Pre-proclamation cases involving provincial, city and municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof. All pre