RULE 64

REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS

OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT


G.R . No . 194139 . January 24 , 2012 . DOUGLAS R. CAGAS, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, AND CLAUDE P. BAUTISTA, respondents.

Election Law; Commission on Elections; Certiorari; The Court has no power to review on
certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution issued by a Division of the
COMELEC.The governing provision is Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides: 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 2. del Sur in the
May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections. The fast transmission of the results led to
the completion by May 14, 2010 of the canvassing of votes cast for Governor of Davao del Sur,
and the petitioner was proclaimed the winner (with 163,440 votes), with Bautista garnering
159,527 votes. [4] Alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities, vote-buying and violations of
election laws, rules and resolutions, Bautista filed an electoral protest on May 24 , 2010 (EPC
No . 2010-42). [5] The protest was raffled to the COMELEC First Division. In his answer
submitted on June 22, 2010, [6] the petitioner averred as his special affirmative defenses that
Bautista did not make the requisite3. 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. This provision, although it confers on the Court the power to review
any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, limits such power to a final decision or resolution
of the COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a Division of
the COMELEC. Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on certiorari an4. in every
election protest and to decide based on such allegations whether to admit the protest and
proceed with the hearing or to outrightly dismiss the protest in accordance with Section 9, Rule
6 of COMELEC Resolution No . 8804. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Romulo B. Macalintal and Edgardo Carlo L.
Vistan, II for petitioner. Sibayan, Lumbos and Associates Law Office for private respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.: A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in an election protest may not directly assail the order in
this Court through a special civil action for5. certiorari. The remedy is to seek the review of the
interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of the Division in due course. For
resolution is the petition for certiorari brought under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
order dated August 13, 2010 (denying the affirmative defenses raised by the petitioner), [1] and
the order dated October 7, 2010 (denying his motion for reconsideration), [2] both issued by
the COMELEC First Division in EPC No . 2010-42, an election protest entitled Claude P. Bautista,
protestant v. Douglas R. Cagas, protestee. [3] Antecedents The petitioner and respondent
Claude P. Bautista (Bautista) contested the position of Governor of the Province of Davao6.
cash deposit on time; and that Bautista did not render a detailed specification of the acts or
omissions complained of. On August 13, 2010, the COMELEC First Division issued the first
assailed order denying the special affirmative defenses of the petitioner, *7+ viz.: After careful
examination of the records of the case, this Commission (First Division) makes the following
observation: 1. Protestant paid the cash deposit amounting to one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) on June 3, 2010 as evidenced by O.R. No . 1118105; and 2. Paragraph nos. 9 to 28
of the initiatory petition filed by the Protestant set forth the specific details of the acts and
omissions complained of against the7. Protestee. It is therefore concluded that the payment by
the Protestant on June 3, 2010 is a substantial compliance with the requirement of COMELEC
Resolution No . 8804, taking into consideration Section 9(e), Rule 6 of said Resolution.
Furthermore, the Protestant has likewise essentially complied with Section 7(g), Rule 6 of the
above-mentioned Resolution.
In view of the foregoing, this Commission (First Division) RESOLVES to DENY the Protestees
special affirmative defenses. SO ORDERED.












Case Title: RENATO M. FEDERICO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, COMELEC
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR and OSMUNDO M. MALIGAYA, respondents.
Case Nature: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

FACTS:
Ongkiko, Manhit, Custodio Acorda for petitioner. Exconde and Exconde Law Offices for
intervenor. George Erwin M. Garcia for private respondent. MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 , of the Rules of Court, assailing the December
21, 2011 Resolution [1] of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) En Banc, in SPC No. 10-082.
In the ballot, the only document to be read by the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS)
machines. Same; Substitution of Candidates; Republic Act No. 9006; Under Section 12 of R.A.
No. 9006, in order to obviate confusion, the name of the substitute candidate should, as much
as possible, bear the same surname as that of the substituted candidate.With regard to
substitutions, Congress and the Comelec came out with laws and rules addressing anticipated
problems in such cases. Thus, under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9006, in order to obviate confusion,
the name of the substitute candidate should, as much as possible, bear the same surname as
that of the substituted candidate. Section 12 reads: Section.The printing, the name of the
substitute candidate can no longer be accommodated in the ballot and a vote for the substitute
will just be wasted. Same; Same; Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no
proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot deprive the
Commission on Elections of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the OSG that Resolution No. 8889 was void as it was in
contravention of the guidelines set forth under Resolution No. 8678. With respect to Federico,
it cannot be regarded as a valid source of any right, like the right to be voted for public office.
Indeed, a void.




Quio vs. Commission on Elections, 685 SCRA 371, November 13, 2012

Case Title : JOEL P. QUIO, MARY ANTONETTE C. DANGOY, JOSEPHINE T. ABING, JOY ANN P.
CABATINGAN, TESSA P. CANG, WILFREDO T. CALO, HOMER C. CANEN, JOSE L. CAGANG, ALBERTO
CABATINGAN and FRANCISCO T. OLIVERIO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RITCHIE R.
WAGAS, respondents.
Case Nature: SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

FACTS:

Petitioner Joel P. Quio and private respondent Ritchie R. Wagas both ran for the position of Mayor of
Compostela, while petitioner Mary Antonette C. Dangoy was a candidate for vice-mayor, during the May
10, 2010 elections. Petitioners Josephine T. Abing, Joy Ann P. Cabatingan, Tessa P. Cang, Wilfredo T.
Calo, Homer C. Canen, Jose L. Cagang, Alberto
Cabatingan and Francisco T. Oliverio were candidates for municipal councilors.
Results of the canvassing showed that Quio obtained 11,719 votes as against 9,338 votes garnered by
Wagas.
3
Quio, along with the rest of the petitioners who were the winning candidates for members of
the Sangguniang Bayan, were proclaimed by the MBOC on May 11, 2010.
On May 14, 2010, Wagas filed an Election Protest
4
against Quio before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Mandaue City.
On May 21, 2010, Wagasalso filed a petition
5
for annulment of proclamation in the COMELEC, docketed
as SPC No. 10-041. He claimed that after the proclamation, it was discovered that the Audit/Print Logs of
the Consolidating Machine of the MBOC did not reflect at least fourteen (14) clustered precincts, and
that despite such absence the Consolidating Machine generated, among others,the Certificate of
Canvassand Statement of Votes (SOV). As it appears that the electronic election returns (EERs) of 14
precincts were already stored in the Consolidating Machine, the same are therefore falsified ERs.
Notably, the EER for Clustered Precinct No. 19 showed that more than 700 votes were cast but the
Statement of Votes reflected only 10 votes. Contending that the Certificates of Canvass and
Proclamationare without authentic basis, Wagas prayed that the proclamation of the winning
candidates be declared null and void.
ISSUE:

The issues are governed by an election protest, which should have been filed with the RTC.

"It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial
rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of
moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justifiable controversy, so
that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to
which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.


WHEREFORE, the presents petition for certiorari is DISMISSED on the ground of MOOTNESS.