You are on page 1of 2

Consti2Digest – Mendoza Vs Comelec (EnBanc), GR 191084 (25 March 2010)

Mendoza Vs Comelec
(EnBanc)

Joselito R. Mendoza (Petitioner) Vs. COMELEC and Roberto M. Pagdananan (Respondents), GR 191084,
25 March 2010

PEREZ, J.:

Facts

This case involves the election protest filed with the Commission on Elections against Joselito R. Mendoza
(Mendoza), who was proclaimed elected Governor of Bulacan in the 14 May 2007 elections. Mendoza
garnered 364,566 votes while private respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan (Pagdanganan) got 348,834
votes, giving Mendoza a winning margin of 15,732 votes.

After the appreciation of the contested ballots, the COMELEC Second Division deducted a total of 20,236
votes from Mendoza and 616 votes from Pagdanganan. As regards the claimed ballots, Mendoza was
awarded 587 ballots compared to Pagdanganan's 586 ballots. Thus, the result of the revision proceedings
showed that Pagdanganan obtained 342,295 votes, which is more than Mendoza's 337,974 votes. In its
Resolution dated 1 December 2009 (Division Resolution), the COMELEC Second Division annulled the
proclamation of Mendoza and proclaimed Pagdanganan as the duly elected Governor of Bulacan with a
winning margin of 4,321 votes.

The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Division Resolution on 8 February 2010. On 4 March 2010, the
COMELEC En Banc issued an Order denying Mendoza's Motion for Reconsideration and granting
Pagdanganan's Motion for Execution of the Division Resolution

Issue
1. Whether or not, the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it failed to credit petitioner's claims?
2. Whether or not, the COMELEC en banc has the power to hear and decide the case.?

Ruling
Indeed, the grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is patent in the fact that despite the existence in
its books of the clearly worded Section 6 of Rule 18, which incidentally has been acknowledged by this
Court in the recent case of Marcoleta v COMELEC,[5] it completely ignored and disregarded its very own
decree and proceeded with the questioned Resolution of 8 February 2010 and Order of 4 March 2010, in
all, annulling the proclamation of petitioner Joselito R. Mendoza as the duly elected governor of Bulacan,
declaring respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan as the duly elected governor, and ordering petitioner
Joselito R. Mendoza to cease and desist from performing the functions of the Governor of Bulacan and to
vacate said office in favor of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan.

The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is underscored by the fact that the protest that petitioner
Pagdanganan filed on 1 June 2007 overstayed with the COMELEC until the present election year when the
end of the term of the contested office is at hand and there was hardly enough time for the re-hearing
that was conducted only on 15 February 2010. As the hearing time at the division had run out, and the re-
hearing time at the banc was fast running out, the unwanted result came about: incomplete appreciation

Page 1 of 2
of ballots; invalidation of ballots on general and unspecific grounds; unrebutted presumption of validity
of ballots.

Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the
authority to decide election cases in the first instance as this authority belongs to the divisions of the
COMELEC Specifically.
Sec.3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All
such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided by the Commission En Banc.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned Resolution of the COMELEC promulgated on 8
February 2010 in EPC No. 2007-44 entitled "Roberto M. Pagdanganan v. Joselito R. Mendoza," the Order
issued on 4 March 2010, and the consequent Writ of Execution dated 5 March 2010
are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The election protest of respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan is
hereby DISMISSED.

Page 2 of 2

You might also like