Jumamil Vs COMELEC

Jumamil vs COMELEC GR no 167989-93 March 6, 2007
FACTS: Petitioner Jumamil and private respondent Purog both ran as candidates
for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Victoria, Northern Samar, during
the 10 May 2004 synchronized national and local elections. Petitioner Centino and
private respondent Verde were vice mayoralty candidates therein; whilst
petitioners Castillo, Millano and Francisco and private respondents Aliluyah,
Medice, Subiaga and Aucente all ran for slots as Board Members of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Victoria, Northern Samar.
On 11 August 2004, private respondents Purog, et al., were all proclaimed the
winning candidates in the respective positions they ran for.
Contending an assortment of election anomalies, irregularities and fraud alleged

to have been committed by respondents Purog, et al., petitioners Jumamil, et al.,
individually filed election protest cases on 24 August 2004, which were later on
consolidated, before the RTC.
Private respondents Purog, et al., moved for the dismissal of the cases. Aside
from the foregoing motion, they included in their Answer with Affirmative
Defense and Counter-Protest/Counter-Claim a prayer for the conduct of a hearing
and pre-trial prior to the commencement of the revision process.
The RTC issued a Resolution basically denying the motion to have the cases
dismissed for lack of cause of action as well as the prayer that a hearing or pre-
trial be required before the revision of the challenged ballots. Respondents filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Private respondents Purog, et al., elevated to the COMELEC, via a Petition for
Certiorari, the denial of their motion to dismiss and to conduct hearing, as well as
pre-trial, prior to the commencement of the revision of the ballots and asked for
the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or the issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction in order to suspend the revision proceedings ordered by
the RTC. The Comelec granted respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it effectively enjoined the RTC
from proceeding with the conduct of the case while the former deliberates on the
outcome of the Petitions for Certiorari filed before it by private respondent Purog,
et al.
RULING: YES. To begin with, the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions
of the Comelec is prescribed in the Constitution, as follows:
“SECTION 7. Each commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members
any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its
submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum
required by the rules of the commission or by the commission itself. Unless
otherwise provided by this constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
The Court have interpreted this provision to mean final orders, rulings and
decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers. This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the
Comelec en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory order of a
division.
The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order
or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.
The mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the Comelec en banc may be
elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, now expressly provided in Rule 64,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. (Citation omitted.)
Accordingly, the RTC was unequivocally directed to proceed with deliberate

dispatch with the revision of the contested and counter-protested ballots in the
subject election protest cases.

Jumamil Vs COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jumamil Vs COMELEC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jumamil Vs COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jumamil vs COMELEC GR no 167989-93 March 6, 2007

Contending an assortment of election anomalies, irregularities and fraud alleged

ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion

Accordingly, the RTC was unequivocally directed to proceed with deliberate

You might also like