13.
Villarosa v Festin  Petitioner questioned the issuance of the injunction since it was issued by
GR NO. 212953
August 5, 2014
Topic: Judicial Review and Remedies
Petitioners: Jose Tapales Villarosa
Respondents: Romulo De Mesa Festin and COMELEC
Ponente: Velasco, J., Jr.
FACTS:
 Petitioner and Respondent were two out of four rival candidates for the
mayoral office in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro during the May 13, 2013
National and Local Elections.
 On May 15, Respondent was proclaimed the victor with 20,761 votes,
edging Petitioner who got 19,557 votes.
 With a difference of 1,204 votes, Petitioner filed a Petition for Protest Ad
Cautelam before the RTC, alleging irregularities in the conduct of the
election. Specifically, Petitioner raised the complaints of various voters
who claimed that some ballots were pre-marked or that the ovals
appearing on the ballots corresponding to Petitioner’s name were
embossed to prevent them from being shaded.
 As a consequence of the electoral fraud in the 92 clustered precincts of San
Jose, Petitioner claims that Respondent was illegally proclaimed.
 Respondent answered, also impugning the election results, specifically the
number of votes awarded to Petitioner.
 Both parties raised an issue in the accuracy of the votes; hence, a physical
recount was conducted in the RTC.
 RTC: Declared proclamation of Respondent void. Petitioner is the duly
elected mayor. The Court deducts 2,050 votes from Respondent due to
pre-marking and tampering.
 Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
 Respondent then elevated the case to COMELEC via a Petition for
Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief.
 Petitioner moved for its dismissal on the ground that Respondent’s
verification is defective.
 COMELEC: On Feb. 13, through its First Division, issued a TRO over the RTC
from implementing its decision during the pendency of the case. On Apr.
14, through its Special First Division, also granted Respondent’s request for
a preliminary injunction, enjoining the RTC’s decision execution pending
appeal.
 Petitioner filed an urgent motion praying for its quashal, but was denied
by the First Division.
a newly-constituted Special First Division, which was allegedly formed due
to the absence of several COMELEC Commissioners, who were attending
to overseas absentee voter issues. Petitioner points out that the special
division was constituted only on April 8, 2014 and it only had two
members, Chairman Brillantes and Commissioner Parreño.
ISSUE:
W/N the formation of the Special First Division and the orders handed down by it is
lawful? YES
HELD/RATIO:
Petitioner insists that the COMELEC First Division acquired jurisdiction over the case
on Feb. 13, 2014 when it directed him to file an answer and when it issued a TRO
enjoining the execution. Hence, Petitioner argues that this precluded the Special First
Division from acquiring jurisdiction over the same case and issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the absence of two
commissioners in the division is not sufficient to remove it from its jurisdiction and
confer it to a new one.
The Court does not agree. It finds Petitioner’s argument both unsound and
procedurally defective.
Petitioner’s procedural lapse becomes manifest with the availability of a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy at his disposal, his hasty resort to certiorari to the SC
cannot be justified. On this ground alone, his petition should be dismissed outright.
Taking the facts into consideration, however, the Court rules that the assailed order
by the COMELEC Special First Division was not issued in grave abuse of discretion.
COMELEC’s action in this case finds constitutional basis under Sec. 3, Art. IX-C,
wherein it is stated that the COMELEC may sit en banc in two divisions. Pursuant to
this mandate, COMELEC promulgated Resolution 7808, wherein Sec. 6, Rule 3 states
that substitution of members of a division and the designation of a special first
division for pending cases. This rule was then amended by Resolution 9636 and
eventually Resolution 9868, wherein it addressed the temporary vacancies in the
divisions of the COMELEC due to pressing election concerns.
Due to the vacancies, and to constitute a quorum for the Divisions, Chairman
Brillantes sat as presiding Chairman for both divisions. Hence, special divisions were
created to address pending cases.
It then becomes indisputable that the formation of the Special Divisions is sanctioned
by both COMELEC Rules and the Constitution.

Therefore, no grave abuse can be ascribed to the COMELEC when the Special First
Division issued the writ of preliminary injunction, which was questioned by
Petitioner. It cannot be said that the First Division and the Special First Division are
two distinct bodies and there has been a transfer of jurisdiction.

In other words, COMELEC did not create a separate Division but merely filled the
vacancies in both of its divisions. The word “Special” in its title just shows that the
commissioners are only sitting in the division in a temporary capacity or as a
substitute. The jurisdiction over cases assumed by the First Division was not lost by
the formation of the Special First Division since this only entails a change in the
composition of magistrates assigned to it. The case was not reassigned or re-raffled.
Simply put, it is still the same jurisdiction since jurisdiction was never lost to begin
with.

Petitioner’s cry over violation of due process has no ground to stand on.

Wherefore, Petition is dismissed.