G.R. No. 178767 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the appropriate recourse was for petitioners to timely assail COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 before this Court, which they, in fact, did, via the special civil action of certiorari , following Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court. [26] We clarify, at this point, that COMELEC Resolution No. 8212 is an issuance in the exercise of the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function. The same was issued pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166, which states that - [a]ll pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari . (Italics supplied) [27] The determination by the COMELEC of the merits of a pre-proclamation case definitely involves the exercise of adjudicatory powers. The COMELEC examines and weighs the parties' pieces of evidence vis-à-vis their respective arguments, and considers whether, on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the case appears to have merit. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial. [28] The Court, in this case, therefore finds the instant petition to be the correct remedy in challenging COMELEC Resolution No. 8212. Noticeable in the petition, however, is that petitioners, instead of denominating their petition as one under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules, merely captioned it as one under Rule 65, and further erroneously invoked the 60-day reglementary period in the said Rule [29] rather than the 30-day period in Rule 64. [30] But respondents also erred in their counter-arguments that the petition is the wrong recourse and is belatedly filed. The Court is disinclined to dismiss the petition based only on petitioners' alleged errors because, in reality, they filed a Rule 64 cum Rule 65 petition within the 30-day reglementary period. We merely mentioned the said mistakes to emphasize the perplexity among many candidates and election law practitioners brought about by the issuance of COMELEC resolutions pursuant to Section 16, R.A. No. 7166. In the instant case, several factors further contributed to the confusionthe absence of a definitive ruling by the COMELEC division in SPC No. 07-180; the absence of a final ruling by the COMELEC en banc on petitioners' motion for reconsideration in SPC No. 07-011; and the issuance of the said COMELEC R