1. Ejercito vs.

Comelec (2014)

Facts: Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 Elections, a petition for
disqualification was filed by Edgar EgaySan Luis before the COMELEC against
Emilio Ramon E.R. P. Ejercito, who was a fellow candidate and, at the time, the
incumbent Governor of the Province of Laguna. The petition alleges two causes
of action: (1) Ejercito, during the campaign period for 2013 local election,
distributed to the electorates of the province of Laguna the Orange Card .
Given that the Orange Card could be used in any public hospital within the
Province of Laguna for their medical needs, it qualifies as a material
consideration in convincing the voters to cast their votes for Ejercitos favor in
clear violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code;(2) Under Section 5 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, the aggregate amount that a candidate may
spend for election campaign shall be P3.00 for every voter currently registered
in the constituency where the candidate filed his certificate of candidacy The
Province of Laguna has a total of 1,525,522registered electorate. Accordingly, a
candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of Laguna is only authorized to
incur an election expense amounting to P4,576,566.00. However, for television
campaign commercials alone, Ejercito already spent P23,730,784. Even
assuming that Ejercito was given 30%discount as prescribed under the Fair
Election Act, he still paid the sum of P16,611,549. Hence, Ejercito committed an
election offense under Section 35 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, in relation to
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code On May 17, 2013, Ejercito and Ramil L.
Hernandez were proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as the duly-
elected Governor and Vice-Governor, respectively, of Laguna. Based on the
Certificate of Canvass, Ejercito obtained 549,310 votes compared with San Luis
471,209 votes. The COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice of
Conference. Ejercito prayed for the dismissal of the petition which was
improperly filed because it is in reality a complaint for election offenses, thus,
the case should have been filed before the COMELEC Law Department, or the
election registrar. Also, San Luis failed to show, conformably with Codilla, Sr. vs.
De Venecia, that he (Ejercito) was previously convicted or declared by final
judgment for being guilty of, or found by the COMELEC of having committed, the
punishable acts under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). Ejercito
likewise asserted that the petition questioning his qualification was rendered
moot and academic by his proclamation as the duly-elected Provincial Governor
of Laguna for the term 2013-2016.The COMELEC First Division resolved to grant
the disqualification of Ejercito. While the division rejected the first cause of
action for failure to substantiate the same, it found that Ejercito had accepted
donations of PhP 20,197,170.25 and PhP 3,366,195.05 from Scenema Concept
International, Inc. (SCI) in the form of television advertisements to be aired on
ABS-CBNs Channel 2. Even assuming that the actual cost of both advertising
contracts only amounted to PhP12,818,470.56, it nevertheless supports the
finding that Ejercito exceeded his authorized expenditure limit of PhP
4,576,566.00 which is a ground for disqualification under Section 68 (c) and
concurrently an election offense pursuant to Section 100 in relation to Section
262 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC En Banc agreed with the
findings of its First Division that San Luis petition is an action to disqualify
Ejercito. One ground for disqualification listed in Section 68 is spending in an
election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by law. Hence, COMELEC
has jurisdiction over the petition. As to Ejercitos assertion that the petition was
prematurely filed on the ground that the filing of an election offense and the
factual determination on the existence of probable cause are required before a
disqualification case based on Section 68 of the OEC may proceed, the COMELEC
En Banc cited Lanot vs. Comelec which declared that each of the acts listed as
ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the OEC has two aspects
electoral and criminal. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the
criminal aspect, and an erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior
determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation.

Held: Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules is inapplicable. Section 4, Rule 171 of
the Rules of Court is clear enough in stating that it shall not apply to election
cases except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable
and convenient. In fact, nowhere from COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 requires
that documentary evidence should be formally offered in evidence. The electoral
aspect of a disqualification case is done through an administrative proceeding
which is summary in character.17. Even if the Rules of Court applies, since rules
of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, the
Court is empowered to suspend its rules or to exempt a particular case from the
application of a general rule, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate
rather than promote the ends of justice.