[14] Abad v.
COMELEC Sarenas and disqualified the four voters Sarenas alleged were
G.R. No. 128877 | December 10, 1999 | The Commission on Elections
Petitioner: ROLANDO ABAD, JR.
Respondents: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. OCTAVIO A.
FERNANDEZ, JR., Presiding Judge, Second Metropolitan Circuit Trial
Court, General Natividad, Nueva Ecija; and SUSANITO SARENAS, JR.
Recit-Ready Facts:
1. Abad and Sarenas were candidates for the position of SK Chairman of
Bgy. Sta. Barbara, in the 1996 elections. Abad won by 4 votes but
Sarenas filed with the MCTC an election contest questioning the
qualification of four voters who voted for Abad. The MCTC ruled in
favor of Sarenas and broke the tie between the two through a “toss-
coin” match – which Sarenas won.
2. Abad appealed with the RTC but the later dismissed the petition for
lack of jurisdiction, which following a COMELEC Resolution –
belonged to COMELEC en banc. Abad then filed an appeal with
COMELEC en banc but this was dismissed because the proclamation
already became final.
3. The court ruled that COMELEC’s Resolution was void for being
contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution provides that all election
cases shall be heard and decided in division, and not by the
MCTC/MTC. Thus the court ordered the case to be remanded to a
division of COMELEC.
Doctrine:
1. All election cases shall be heard and decided in division in the first
instance. Motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by
the Commission en banc.
FACTS:
1. Abad and Sarenas were candidates for the SK Chairman of
Barangay Sta. Barbara, Llanera, Nueva Ecija, in the May 6, 1996
elections. Abad won the seat with 4 more votse compared to
Sarenas. Abad was thus proclaimed SK Chairman.
2. Sarenas filed an election complaint against Abad with the MCTC of
Gen. Natividad, Nueva Ecija alleging fraud through the registration of
four unqualified voters. MCTC Judge Fernandez, decided in favor of
unqualified. To break the tie, Judge Fernandez ordered a “toss-coin”
which Sarenas won.
3. Abad appealed to the RTC of Cabanatuan City who dismissed his
petition since under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, the decision of
the MCTC insofar as the SK election is concerned can only be
elevated to the COMELEC en banc through a petition for review and
only in meritorious cases.
4. Abad then appealed with the COMELEC en banc who dismissed the
petition on the basis of finality for Abad’s failure to file with
COMELEC en banc within 30 days from the MCTC’s judgment.
ISSUES:
1. WON COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing Abad’s petition for finality. – YES.
RATIO:
2. The Court found Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824,
which provides that “the Commission en banc in meritorious cases
may entertain a petition for review of the decision of the
MetC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the Comelec Rules of
Procedure” – is in conflict with Article IX-C, Section 3 of the
Constitution, which states that “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.”
3. COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the requisite authority to
hear and decide election cases in the first instance. This power
pertains to the divisions of the Commission. The court in the case of
Zarate nullified the decision of the COMELEC en banc, which also
concerns a 1996 SK election case appealed directly from the MTC.
The case was remanded and assigned to an appropriate division of
the COMELEC.
Disposition of the Court
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the
COMELEC en banc in SPR No. 45-96 is SET ASIDE and the Commission is
ordered to assign the case to one of its Divisions for prompt resolution.

SO ORDERED.