41.

Juliano v COMELEC  COMELEC En Banc granted the reconsideration and the resolution of the
GR NO. 167033 2nd Division was set aside. However, only three members of the En Banc
April 12, 2006 voted in favor of such resolution. Three members dissented and one
Topic: Power to hear and resolve cases in Division and in En Banc member abstained. Therefore, upon failing to obtain a majority vote, the
Petitioners: Estrelita Juliano COMELEC En Banc issued an order affirming the 2nd Division.
Respondents: COMELEC and Muslimin Sema  Hence, Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari.
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.
ISSUE:
DOCTRINE: W/N COMELEC EN Banc and its 2nd Division committed grave abuse?
Unless COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision
will not be interfered with by the SC. Additionally, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure HELD/RATIO:
states that if the En Banc is equally divided, the case shall be reheard Unless COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision
will not be interfered with by the SC. Considering that the resolution of the 2nd
FACTS: division was affirmed due to the voting of the En Banc, wherein the votes were
 The factual allegations in this case reveal that Cotabato City has a total of equally divided, the SC is compelled to look deeper into the case.
577 clustered polling precincts distributed among 37 barangays; that the
first City Board of Canvassers chaired by Atty. Martirizar convened and COMELEC Rules of Procedure states that if the En Banc is equally divided, the case
conducted its proceedings. shall be reheard. The Court notes, however, that the En Banc decision clearly stated
 That Petitioner filed an ex parte petition to replace membership of the first that what was conducted was a “re-consultation,” which is different from a
City Board and was granted by the COMELEC. rehearing.
 The second City Board was chaired by Atty. Surmieda and conducted
canvassing proceedings. Rehearing is a second consideration of cause for purpose of calling to court’s or
 Petitioner also sought the transfer of the canvassing from the Session Hall administrative board’s attention any error in first consideration. A retrial of issues
to the 6th ID Camp, Maguindanao. That the second board also failed to presumes notice to parties entitled. A reconsultation is a deliberation of persons on
finish canvassing and was replaced by a third board under Atty. Bedol. some subject.
 This canvassing was interrupted by another petition from Petitioner for the
transfer of canvassing from Maguindanao to the COMELEC main office in Thus, a rehearing clearly presupposes the participation of the opposing parties to
Manila, which was granted. present additional evidence.
 The canvassing was done in the new venue and a notice was issued by the
third board stating that the resumption of canvassing in Manila will be on
June 2, 2004.
 Despite the notice, the third board resumed its canvassing on June 1, 2004
at the COMELEC Session Hall, ruling on all returns, denying all petitions,
canvassed election returns, then entered the votes and proclaimed the
winners. The third board then proclaimed Respondent as the duly elected
Mayor of Cotabato City.
 Petitioner filed a consolidated petition to nullify canvass proceedings and
proclamation by the third board.
 The COMELEC 2nd Division ruled against Petitioner’s contentions; hence,
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc and
Commissioner Javier was assigned as ponenta.