A.M. No. RTJ-08-2100 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1689-RTJ) - MAYOR SHIRLEY M. PANGILINAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE INOCENCIO M. JAURIGUE, PRESIDING JUDGE AND ATTY. CIRILO Q. TEJOSO, JR., BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, BOTH OF BRANCH 44, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAMBURAO, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO. PROMULGATED: - Supr

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, the Court has nothing to do but to defer the revision of ballots in the remaining precincts of the above-entitled case, and instead let this case be held in abeyance until receipt of the Order from the Second Division, Commission on Election." From the time that the questioned Order dated June 5, 2002 was issued by respondent Judge directing the revision of ballots in ECC No. 19, the parties presented their respective versions, as follows: COMPLAINANT'S VERSION That on June 5, 2002, the Presiding Judge issued an Order directing the revision of the ballot for the remaining precincts to commence on June 10, 2002 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning and 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to the Order of the Commission on Elections dated May 24, 2002 thru Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain issued in Comelec Case No. ERPC No. 2001-34 - entitled "Ricardo Quintos, protestee vs. Jose Villarosa, protestant," x x x; That on June 10, 2002, complainant filed an Urgent motion for Postponement with Clarification and Manifestation, x x x; That despite the said Urgent Motion for Postponement with Manifestation and Clarification, the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Cirilo Q. Tejoso, Jr., proceeded with the revision, in clear defiance of the status quo Order dated November 13, 2001. That in [the] absence of the Presiding Judge, Atty. Tejoso proceeded with [the] revision. In the two (2) day revision, i.e., on June 10 and 11, 2002, the committee was able to revise the following: Revision Date Precincts June 10, 2002 26A1 June 10, 2002 46A, Tubili June 10, 2002 10A, Harrison June 11, 2002 15A, Mananaw June 11, 2002 16A, 17A, Mananaw June 11, 2002 5A, Harrison Clearly, under the Order of the Comelec dated May 24, 2002, in the case of Quintos v. Villarosa (EPC No. 2001-34), only the following ballots were to be revised to wit: Precincts Nos. 13A/14A, 23A, 25A, 24A, 3A, 47A1/48A, 29A/30/A, 35A, 27A/28A, 7A/8A, 26A1, 9A, 36A and 47A, That prior thereto, from October 17, 2001 to October 24, 2001, the Revision Committee was able to revise twenty one (21) precincts, consisting of the following: Revision Date Precincts October 17, 2001 44A October 17, 2001 13A/14A October 18, 2001 23A, Brgy. I October 18, 2001 24A, Brgy. I October 19, 2001 29A/30A October 19, 2001 25A, Brgy. I October 22, 2001 9A, Brgy. Harrison October 22, 2001 3A, Alipaoy October 23, 2001 27A/28A, Brgy. II October 23, 2001 36A/37A, Brgy. 4 October 23, 2001 47A, Tubili October 24, 2001 26A, Brgy. I October 24, 2001 35A, Brgy. 4 October 24, 2001 47A1/48, Tubili October 24, 2001 7A/8A That clearly, respondent's Order dated June 5, 2002 directing the resumption of the revision on June 10, 2002, was not in accordance with the Order, dated May 24, 2002 of the Comelec (Second Division in EPC No. 2001-34 Quintos v. Villarosa). Only precinct 26A1 should have been revised pursuant to the said Order. However, the committee was able to revise also the following precincts: Revision Date Precincts June 10, 2002 46A,