LEGAZPI v.

COMELEC
1. Respondents Germar [mayor] , Santos [councilor] , and
Esquivel [v. mayor] were among the candidates of the
liberal party for local elective posts in Norzagaray
Bulacan. Petitioner Legaspi was the National Unity
Party bet for mayor in Norzagaray in 2013 elections.
2. Germar and Santos won. Petitioner filed before the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Norzagaray to
suspend the proclamation of Germar and Santos.
3. Despite such motion by Legazpi, MBC declared Germar
and Santos. A few hours after such proclamation,
Legazpi filed before the COMELEC a petition for
disqualification against Germar, Santos, and Esquivel.
They were accused for vote buying.
4. COMELEC 1st division even 1-1 split decidion. 3 rd
member of the division was not able to provide tiebreaking vote as he was absent to some official
business.
5. Special first division 2-1 vote
a. Disqualifying Germar and Santos
b. Criminal aspect of the complaint be referred to
the COMELEC Law department for preliminary
investigation.
6. MR was filed by the respondents.
7. COMELEC EN BANC [6 members, only 5 actually
participated]
a. ELECTORAL ASPECT 3-2 [3- in favor of
disqualification, 2 not in favor]
i. Majority of at least 4 votes was not
reached.
b. CRIMINAL ASPECT 4-1; in favor of the referral
of the criminal aspect of the case. Majority was
reached.
8. COMELEC EN BAN ISSUED A RESOLUTION: MR of the
respondents DENIED with respect to criminal aspect,
but ordered a REHEARING as to the electoral aspect of
the case.
9. After rehearing COMELEC EN BANC failed to come up
with a majority consensus on the electoral aspect.
a. COMELEC EN BANC ISSUED AN ORDER:

i. DISMISSAL of the electoral aspect of the

case pursuant to Sec. 6 Rule 18 of the
COMELEC rules of procedure1.
ISSUE:
1. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
on dismissing the electoral aspect of the complaint.
2. WON there was misapplication by the COMELEC of sec.
6 rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules.
HELD: Petition dismissed.

Section 7 of Article 1X-A of the Constitution obliges the

COMELEC, like the other constitutional commissions, to
decide all cases or matters before it by a "majority
vote of all its members."
When such majority vote cannot be mustered by the
COMELEC en banc, Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC
Rules provides the mechanism to avert a non-decision.
o COMELEC en banc is first required to rehear the
case or matter that it cannot decide or resolve
by the necessary majority. When a majority still
cannot be had after the rehearing, however,
there results a failure to decide on the part of
the COMELEC en banc.
EFFECTS OF COMELEC EN BANCS FAILURE TO DECIDE:
o If the action or proceeding is originally
commenced in the COMELEC, such action or
proceeding shall be dismissed2;
o In appealed cases, the judgment or order

1 Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. - When the

Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the
necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be
reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the
action or proceeding shall be dismissed if originally
commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the
judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all
incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
(Emphasis ours.)
2 the first effect (i.e., the dismissal of the action or proceeding)
only applies when the type of case before the COMELEC is an action
or proceeding "originally commenced in the commission"

appealed from shall stand affirmed;3 or

In incidental matters, the petition or motion
shall be denied.4

PETITIONERS CONTENTION:

CA erred in treating the case as an action that was

originally commenced in the commission under rule
18 sec. 6.
An action can only be considered as having been
originally commenced in the commission when that
action was originally filed before the COMELEC EN
BANC itself.
What was before the COMELEC En Banc was not the
main petition but only the motion for reconsideration
of the decision of the COMELEC special division.
o COMELEC en banc should only deny the MR and
affirm the decision of the COMELEC division.
COMELEC en banc did not err when it dismissed the
electoral aspect of the complaint when it was unable
to reach a majority vote after rehearing.
The complaint was an action filed originally before the
COMELEC.
o Said action reached the COMELEC en banc only
through a MR of the special first division, its
character as an original case filed before the
commission remains the same.
o First effect applies.
ORIGINALLY COMMENCED IN THE COMMISSION must
be construed in its ordinary and natural sense.
o Covers any action or proceeding that is files, at
first instance, before the COMELEC [whether
division or en banc].

Petitioners view restricts to include only those

actions that are originally filed with the
COMELEC en banc itself.
No basis!
The present action is a fresh petition as it passed upon
no other tribunal, body or entry prior to its filing with
the COMELEC.
o

Petitioners averment that what was before the COMELEC en

banc was merely the MR and not the petition for
disqualification NO MERIT.

MENDOZA v. COMELEC - COMELEC will act on the case

in one whole and single process: to repeat, in
division, and if impelled by a motion for
reconsideration, en banc.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration with
the COMELEC en banc of a decision or resolution
of the division of the COMELEC should be viewed
as part of one integrated process.
The motion for reconsiderationnot being an appeal
from the decision of the division to the en banconly
thus serves as a means of having the election case
decided by the COMELEC en banc. MERE
CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING PROCESS.
Under this view, therefore, the nature of the election
case as it was before the division remains the same
even after it is forwarded to the en banc through a
motion for reconsideration.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE VELASCO:

3 second effect (i.e., the affirmance of a judgment or order) only

applies when the type of case before the COMELEC is an "appealed

case"
4 third effect (i.e., the denial of the petition or motion) only
applies when the case or matter before the COMELEC is an
"incidental matter."

Same with petitioners position with regard to the

MR but with a different argument.
o First effect under Sec. 6 Rule 18 applies in
the case but COMELEC en banc erred on how
it applied the provision.
Said provision speaks of dismissal of either an
action or a proceeding which pertains to
different cases or matters that may be brought
before the COMELEC en banc.

action cases originally filed before the COMELEC

division or en banc; proceeding motions for
reconsideration challenging a division decision.
o Betrayal of the principles in Mendoza case.
Calls for modification or abandonment of the
said ruling as to how the said provision was
applied.

COURT NOT CONVINCED:

Part V of the COMELEC Rules is telling of how the

COMELEC Rules actually intended such terms and
phrase to be understood, which is, in the context of its

other provisions.
Part V of the COMELEC Rules, which is aptly titled
"Particular Actions or Proceedings" is one of the nine
major parts of the COMELEC Rules. It is composed of
Rules 20 to 34 of the COMELEC Rules, wherein each
rule covers a specific "action or proceeding" that the
COMELEC can take cognizance of.
What Part V actually discloses are the particular cases
or matters that may be considered as "actions or
proceedings" for purposes of the COMELEC Rules.

DISPOSITIVE: petition dismissed.