Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Facts:
A petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, assailing the Orders issued by public respondent
Commission on Election (COMELEC) in relation to the election
protest, filed by private respondent Tinga against petitioner
Cayetano.
In the automated national and local elections held on petitioner and
private respondent were candidates for the position of Mayor of
Taguig City. Petitioner was proclaimed the winner receiving a
total of 95,865 votes as against the 93,445 votes received by
private respondent.
Respondent filed an Election Protest against petitioner before the
COMELEC. Respondents protest listed election frauds and
irregularities allegedly committed by petitioner, which translated
to the latters ostensible win as Mayor of Taguig City.
Petitioner filed her Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim
and raised, the affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and
content of the Election Protest and prayed for the immediate
dismissal thereof.
The COMELEC held a preliminary conference and issued an Order
granting private respondent a period within which to file the
appropriate responsive pleading to the Answer of petitioner. The
COMELEC likewise stated that it will rule on the affirmative
defenses raised by petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Preliminary
Conference Order relative to the denial of her affirmative
defenses. Private respondent filed a Comment and Opposition
thereto. Consequently, the COMELEC issued the second
assailed Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not respondent COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction.
Held:
Petition is DENIED
Ratio:
As jurisprudence has abided and held the difference of a
special action for certiorari and that of appeal by certiorari or
petition for review, there can be no mistake that Petitioner in
case at bar has brought questions of fact that the Supreme
Court can not rule upon for the said court can determine
whether there are questions of law and grave abuse of
discretion.
The court held that Factual matters were not deemed
proper for consideration in proceedings either.. as an original
action for certiorari or as an appeal by certiorari.
What are field offices?