BALITE vs.

COMELEC

UDK-14858
DATE: April 2, 2013

PETITIONER: ERNESTO D. BALITE

RESPONDENT: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

In accordance with Rule 64 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing review of judgments
and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the
requirements specified therein shall be entertained.

On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —

(a) failure to completely state the material dates to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 3
(2nd par.), Rule 46;

(b) non-submission of proof of service (e.g., a written admission of the party served/an affidavit of the party serving/registry receipts) of the
petition on the Commission on Elections as required by Section 5, Rule 64 and Section 13, Rule 13;

(c) failure to pay docket and other fees in violation of Section 5 (4th par.), Rule 64 and Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 2, Rule 56; and

(d) insufficiency of the petition in form as it lacks verification and certification against forum-shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 64 in relation
to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7.

In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the
COMELEC in rendering the challenged resolution which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.

ANDRANEDA vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 205296.

February 19, 2013

PETITONER: ARNOLD ADRANEDA AND DR. PRISCILLA AMPUAN,

RESPONDENTS: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ATING GURO,

RULING:

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 19, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205296 (Arnold Adraneda and Dr. Priscilla Ampuan vs. Commission on Elections and Ating Guro). — In accordance with Rule 64 and other
related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission
on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the
basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —

(a) failure to accompany the petition with a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed resolution in violation of
Section 5, Rule 64; and

(b) failure to state material dates showing when notice of resolution subject of the petition was received, when a motion for
reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that the petition was filed on time
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46." (adv2) TDcAaHVery ||| (Adraneda v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
205296, February 19, 2013)
 Palgan v. COMELEC

G.R. No.: 200704

March 20, 2012
PETITIONER: IAM ALASTAIRE PALGAN
RESPONDENTS: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and KRISTINE JEANE BUDIONGAN

RULING:
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 20, 2012, which reads as follows:
The Court Resolved to:
(a) GRANT the Motion dated February 24, 2012 filed by counsel for petitioner for an extension of thirty (30) days from February 24, 2012, or until
March 25, 2012, within which to file a petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court (not a petition for review on certiorari); and
(b)REQUIRE the petitioner to COMPLY with the following procedural requirements within five (5) days from notice hereof:
(i)requirement to state material dates showing when notice of judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition was received, when a
motion for reconsideration, if any, was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received, to show that the motion for extension was filed
on time pursuant to Section 5 (3rd par.), Rule 64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46, Rules of Court;
(ii)requirement to pay deposit for sheriff's fee and legal research fee pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 (4th par.), Rule 64, Rules of Court; and
(iii)requirement to file pleadings and motions in eighteen (18) legible copies pursuant to Section 5 (1st par.), Rule 64 and Section 2, Rule 56, Rules of
Court."

Alliance for Reform Towards Effective Management and Sustainable Development, Inc. v. COMELEC

G.R. No: 205736

March 5, 2013

Petitioner: Alliance for Reform Towards Effective Management and Sustainable Development, Inc.

Respondent: Commission on Elections

Ruling:

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 5, 2013, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 205736 (Alliance for Reform Towards Effective Management and Sustainable Development, Inc. [ARMD] vs. Commission on Elections). — In
accordance with Rule 64 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing review of judgments and final
orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements
specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance
therewith, particularly for —

(a)failure to accompany the petition with a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed
judgment in violation of Section 5, Rule 64; and

(b)insufficiency of the petition in form as the verification is defective because of lack of proof of authority to sign the
same for and in behalf of the petitioner."
 YNARES vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 209593

November 19, 2013

PETITIONER: CASIMIRO A. YNARES III,

RESPONDENT: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND DANILO O. LEYBLE

FACTS:
None. Automatic Dismissal

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court should accept the case.

HELD:
No. In accordance with Rule 64, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be
entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-compliance therewith, particularly for —
(a)failure to state all the material dates to show that the petition was filed on (b)insufficient or defective verification and certification on non-forum
shopping, as the affiant thereof was not personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and
(c)failure to attach a verified declaration that the pleading and annexes submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the printed document
and annexes filed with the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.

In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for being the wrong remedy and for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the Commission on Elections.

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 209593. November 19, 2013.]
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated NOVEMBER 19, 2013, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 209593 (Casimiro A. Ynares III vs. Commission on Elections and Danilo O. Leyble). — In accordance with Rule 64 and other related
provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, as well as circulars, directives or orders of the Supreme Court, governing review of
judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections, only petitions which are accompanied by or which comply strictly with the
requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the instant petition for certiorari for non-
compliance therewith, particularly for — (a)failure to state all the material dates to show that the petition was filed on time pursuant to Section 5, Rule
64 in relation to Section 3 (2nd par.), Rule 46, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; (b)insufficient or defective verification and certification on
non-forum shopping, as the affiant thereof was not personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and (c)failure to attach a verified declaration that the pleading and annexes
submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the printed document and annexes filed with the Supreme Court, as required in the
Guidelines on Submission and Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.

In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for being the wrong remedy and for failure to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of
discretion was committed by the Commission on Elections in rendering the challenged orders which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the
facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.

The Court Resolved to NOTE the Manifestation dated October 29, 2013 filed by counsel for petitioner, stating that he was constrained to file
the petition by registered mail on October 25, 2013." (adv66)
 NILO T. PATES vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMELITA B. that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that
ALMIRANTE every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
G.R. No. 184915 June 30, 2009 There have been some
Ponente: Justice Brion instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of
the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for
FACTS: erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal
interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be
On February 1, 2008 – COMELEC Division issued its resolution resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and
On February 4, 2008 – Counsel of Petitioner received a copy of Feb. 1, circumstances.
2008 resolution
On February 8, 2008 – Petitioner filed his MR
On September 18, 2008 – COMELEC enbanc issued a resolution
denying the MR
On September 22, 2008 – Petitioner received a copy of the Sept. 18,
2008 resolution
On October 22, 2008 – Petitioner filed this petition
On November 11, 2008 – Dismissal Resolution

The petitioner asks us in his "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with

Reiteration for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order" to
reverse the dismissal of his petition, arguing that the petition was
seasonably filed under the fresh period rule enunciated by the
Supreme Court in a number of cases decided beginning the year 2005.
The "fresh period" refers to the original period provided under the
Rules of Court counted from notice of the ruling on the motion for
reconsideration by the tribunal below, without deducting the period
for the preparation and filing of the motion for reconsideration.

Respondent Emelita B. Almirante filed a comment stating that: (1) the

court is absolutely correct in concluding that the petition was filed out
of time; and (2) the petitioner’s reliance on Section 4, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 00-02-03-SC) is totally
misplaced, as Rule 64, not Rule 65, is the vehicle for review of
judgments and final orders or resolutions of the COMELEC.
Respondent Almirante points out that Rule 64 and Rule 65 are
different; Rule 65 provides for a 60-day period for filing petitions for
certiorari, while Rule 64 provides for 30 days.

ISSUE:
Whether the petition for review of the resolution of the COMELEC has
been filed on time.

HELD:
No. The SC ruled that the last day for the filing of a petition for
certiorari, i.e., 30 days from notice of the final COMELEC Resolution,
fell on a Saturday (October 18, 2008), as the petitioner only had the
remaining period of 26 days to file his petition, after using up 4 days in
preparing and filing his Motion for Reconsideration. Effectively, the
last day for filing was October 20, 2008 – the following Monday or the
first working day after October 18, 2008. The petitioner filed his
petition with us on October 22, 2008 or two days late; hence, our
Resolution of dismissal of November 11, 2008.
Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost
respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in
the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The
requirement is in pursuance to the bill of rights inscribed in the
Constitution which guarantees that "all persons shall have a right to
the speedy disposition of their before all judicial, quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies," the adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a
case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true
 LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST
CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA S. JOSE SHERWIN
N. TUGNA, and CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents,
G.R. No. 193808 June 26, 2012
FACTS:
On 19 January 2010, respondents, led by President and Chairperson
Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted the Certificate of
Nomination of CIBAC to the COMELEC Law Department. The
nomination was certified by Villanueva and Virginia S. Jose. On 26
March 2010, Pia Derla submitted a second Certificate of
Nomination, which included petitioners Luis Lokin, Jr. and Teresita
Planas as party-list nominees. Derla affixed to the certification her
signature as "acting secretary-general" of CIBAC.
Claiming that the nomination of petitioners Lokin, Jr. and Planas was
unauthorized, respondents filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to
Expunge From The Records And/Or For Disqualification," seeking to
nullify the Certificate filed by Derla. Respondents contended that
Derla had misrepresented herself as "acting secretary-general," when
she was not even a member of CIBAC; that the Certificate of
Nomination and other documents she submitted were unauthorized
by the party and therefore invalid; and that it was Villanueva who was
duly authorized to file the Certificate of Nomination on its behalf.
In the Resolution dated 5 July 2010, the COMELEC First Division
granted the Petition, ordered the Certificate filed by Derla to be
expunged from the records, and declared respondents’ faction as the
true nominees of CIBAC. Upon Motion for Reconsideration separately
filed by the adverse parties, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the
Division’s findings. In a per curiam Resolution dated 31 August
2010, the Commission reiterated that Pia Derla was unable to prove
her authority to file the said Certificate, whereas respondents
presented overwhelming evidence that Villanueva deputized CIBAC
Secretary General Virginia Jose to submit the Certificate of
Nomination pursuant to CIBAC’s Constitution and bylaws.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in
relation to Rule 65 was filed in time in order to be given due course.
HELD:
NO. This Court denies the petition for being filed outside the requisite
period. The review by this Court of judgments and final orders of the
COMELEC is governed specifically by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court,
which states:
XXX
Sec. 2. Mode of review. A judgment or final order or resolution of the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be
brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
The exception referred to in Section 2 of this Rule refers precisely to
the immediately succeeding provision, Section 3 thereof, which
provides for the allowable period within which to file petitions for
certiorari from judgments of both the COMELEC and the Commission
on Audit. Thus, while Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari
as the general rule in Rule 65, they cannot be equated, as they
provide for different reglementary periods. Rule 65 provides for a
period of 60 days from notice of judgment sought to be assailed in the
Supreme Court, while Section 3 expressly provides for only 30 days,
viz:
SEC. 3. Time to file petition.—The petition shall be filed within thirty
(30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if
allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the
aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but
which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from
notice of denial.
Petitioner received a copy of the first assailed Resolution on 12 July
2010. Upon the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners on 15
July 2010, the COMELEC en banc issued the second assailed
Resolution on 31 August 2010. This per curiam Resolution was
received by petitioners on 1 September 2010. Thus, pursuant to
Section 3 above, deducting the three days it took petitioners to file
the Motion for Reconsideration, they had a remaining period of 27
days or until 28 September 2010 within which to file the Petition for
Certiorari with this Court. However, petitioners filed the present
Petition only on 1 October 2010, clearly outside the required period.
In this case, petitioners do not even attempt to explain why the
Petition was filed out of time. Clearly, they are aware of the applicable
period for filing, as they themselves invoke the remedy under Rule 64
in conjunction with Rule 65. Hence, there is no acceptable reason for
their failure to comply with the proper procedure. But even if this
Court were to apply liberality and take cognizance of the late Petition,
the arguments therein are flawed. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over
cases pertaining to party leadership and the nomination of party-list
representatives.
 Osmeña v. COA
GR NO.: 188818
DATE: May 31, 2011
PETITIONER: Tomas R. Osmeña
RESPONDENT: COA
FACTS:
The City of Cebu was to host the 1994 Palarong Pambansa. In
preparation of the said event, the City engaged the services of WT
Construction, Inc. and Dakay Construction and Development Company
to construct and renovate the Cebu City Sports Complex. Osmeña,
then city mayor, was authorized by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Cebu to represent the City and to execute the construction contracts.
While the construction was being undertaken, Osmeña issued a total
of 20 Change/ Extra Work Orders to WTCI and DCDC. These
Change/Extra Work Orders were not covered by any Supplemental
Agreement, nor was there a prior authorization from the Sanggunian.
When WTCI and DCDC demanded payment for the extra work they
performed, other Sanggunian members refused to pass a resolution
authorizing Osmeña to execute the supplemental agreements with
WTCI and DCDC to cover the extra work performed. As such, WCTI
and DCDC filed two separate collection cases before the RTC of Cebu.
The RTC favored WCTI and ordered the City to pay the extra work
performed plus damages, litigation expenses and attorneys fees.
To satisfy the judgment debts, the Sanggunian finally passed the
required appropriation ordinances. However, the City Auditor issued
two notices disallowing the payment of litigation expenses, damages,
and attorneys fees to WTCI and DCDC. According to the City Auditor,
these are unnecessary expenses for which the public officers should
be held liable in their personal capacities pursuant to the law. Osmeña
and members of the Sanggunian sought reconsideration for the
disallowance with the COA RO in which it was modified the decision
of the City Auditor by absolving the members of the sanggunian from
any liability. It declared that the payment of the amounts awarded as
damages and attorneys fees should be solely be Osmeña’s liability, as
it was him who ordered the change or extra work orders without the
supplemental agreement required by law, or the prior authorization
from the Sanggunian. The Sanggunian members cannot be held liable
for refusing to enact the necessary ordinance appropriating funds for
the judgment award because they are supposed to exercise their own
judgment and discretion in the performance of their functions; they
cannot be mere rubber stamps of the city mayor. The COAs National
Director for Legal and Adjudication sustained the COA RO Decision on
January 10, 2004. Osmeña filed an appeal against the Decision. On
May 6, 2008, COA issued a decision which affirmed the notices of
disallowance. Osmeña received the Decision on May 23, 2008 and on
June 10, 2008, he filed a motion for reconsideration but it was also
denied via a Resolution dated June 8, 2009.
It must be noted that the Office of the Mayor of Cebu City received
the said Resolution of the COA on June 29, 2009. However, since
Osmeña was out of the country for a check up after his cancer surgery,
he received the decision personally on July 15, 2009. On July 27, 2009
filed a petitioner for certiorari under Rule 64. He argued that the
reckoning period of filing the petition should be counted from the
time he officially reported back to his office on July 15, 2009. Since he
is being made liable in his personal capacity, the remaining period
should be counted from his actual knowledge of the denial of his
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition was timely filed.
HELD:
Yes. Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court states: “SEC. 3. Time to
file petition.The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of
said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the
procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the
period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may
file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be
less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.”
Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due
regard, since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases
to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival
claims and in the administration of justice. From time to time,
however, we have recognized exceptions to the Rules but only for the
most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules
would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. Every plea for a
liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an
explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply with the Rules
and by a justification for the requested liberal construction. Where
strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the
petition, this Court may relax the strict application of the rules of
procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.
Osmeña’s reasons were sufficient to justify a relaxation of the Rules.
Given this, it is considered that July 15, 2009 is the effective date
when he was actually notifed of the resolution, and the reckoning
date of the period to appeal. Moreover, a certiorari petition filed
under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court must be verified, and a
verification requires the petitioner to state under oath before an
authorized officer that he has read the petition and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal
knowledge. Given that Osmeña was out of the country to attend to
his medical needs, he could not comply with the requirements to
perfect his appeal of the Decision of the COA. Thus, the reckoning
date to count the remaining 12 days to file his Rule 64 petition should
be counted from July 15, 2009, the date Osmeña had actual
knowledge of the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the
Decision of the COA and given the opportunity to competently file an
appeal thereto before the Court. The present petition, filed on July 27,
2009, was filed within the reglementary period.