Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ERIGUEL v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190526 (February 26, 2010) EN BANC Facts

    Uploaded by

    Tin Lico
    55 views2 pages
    1. This case involved an election protest filed by Dumpit challenging Eriguel's victory in the 2007 mayoral race in Agoo, La Union. After reviewing contested ballots, the COMELEC declared Dumpit the winner by 167 votes. 2. Eriguel appealed, arguing the COMELEC violated procedure by conducting a fresh review of ballots without first verifying their integrity. 3. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eriguel, finding the COMELEC overstepped its jurisdiction and failed to follow proper procedure by transferring the case directly to the Commission en banc instead of having it reviewed by a division first. The COMELEC resolution was set aside.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    14. ERIGUEL v. COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. This case involved an election protest filed by Dumpit challenging Eriguel's victory in the 2007 mayoral race in Agoo, La Union. After reviewing contested ballots, the COMELEC declared Dumpit the winner by 167 votes. 2. Eriguel appealed, arguing the COMELEC violated procedure by conducting a fresh review of ballots without first verifying their integrity. 3. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eriguel, finding the COMELEC overstepped its jurisdiction and failed to follow proper procedure by transferring the case directly to the Commission en banc instead of having it reviewed by a division first. The COMELEC resolution was set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views2 pages

    ERIGUEL v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190526 (February 26, 2010) EN BANC Facts

    Uploaded by

    Tin Lico
    1. This case involved an election protest filed by Dumpit challenging Eriguel's victory in the 2007 mayoral race in Agoo, La Union. After reviewing contested ballots, the COMELEC declared Dumpit the winner by 167 votes. 2. Eriguel appealed, arguing the COMELEC violated procedure by conducting a fresh review of ballots without first verifying their integrity. 3. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eriguel, finding the COMELEC overstepped its jurisdiction and failed to follow proper procedure by transferring the case directly to the Commission en banc instead of having it reviewed by a division first. The COMELEC resolution was set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ERIGUEL v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

    190526 (February 26, 2010) EN BANC


    FACTS:
    Petitioner Eriguel and private respondent Dumpit were mayoralty candidates in Agoo,
    La Union during the May 14, 2007 elections.
    On May 18, 2007, after the canvassing and counting of votes, Eriguel was proclaimed
    asthe duly elected mayor of the Municipality of Agoo. Eriguel received 11,803 votes
    against Dumpit’s 7,899 votes, translating to a margin of 3,904 votes.
    On May 28, 2007, Dumpit filed an Election Protest before the RTCof Agoo, La
    Unioncontesting the appreciation and counting of ballots in 152 precincts in Agoo
    because some of the ballots cast in favor of Eriguel were erroneously counted and
    appreciated in the latter’s favor despite containing markings and identical symbols.
    Dumpit also alleged that while a number of ballots containing Eriguel’s name were
    written by only one (1) person, the same were stillcounted in the latter’s favor.
    The results of the revision showed that Eriguel had 11,678 votes against Dumpit’s
    7,839 votes, or a lead of 3,839 votes.
    On December 7, 2007, the trial court issued a decision upholding Eriguel’s proclamation
    because evidences presented by the Protestant are not substantial enough to persuade
    the Judge of this Court to rule in favor of Protestant.
    Unsatisfied with the findings, Dumpit appealed to the COMELEC. The case was initially
    assigned to the Special Second Division composed of Presiding Commissioner Rene V.
    Sarmiento and Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer. Commissioner Ferrer, however,
    decided to inhibit himself. This prompted Presiding Commissioner Sarmiento to issue an
    Order dated July22, 2009 elevating the appeal to the Commission en banc. The transfer
    of the case to the Commission en banc was apparently made pursuant to COMELEC
    Rules of Procedure.
    Thereafter, the Commission en banc proceeded to conduct a fresh appreciation of the
    contested ballots. On December 9, 2009, after an exhaustive appreciation of all the
    contested ballots, the Commission en banc promulgated a resolution nullifying 3,711
    ballots cast in favor of Eriguel after finding the same to have been written by only one
    (1)or two (2) persons.
    On this note, the Commission en banc set aside the RTC’s decision and declared
    Dumpit as the duly elected mayor of Agoo, La Union, for having garnered 167 more
    votes than Eriguel.
    Aggrieved, Eriguel petitioned via certiorari
    ISSUE
    Whether the COMELEC en banc’s fresh appreciation of the contested ballots without
    first ascertaining the integrity thereof violated the doctrine enunciated in Rosal v.
    Commission on Elections.
    DECISION
    However exhaustive the COMELEC’s findings may appear to be the same is still
    rendered void due to its lack of jurisdiction and its failure to ensure that the integrity of
    the ballots has been preserved prior to conducting a fresh appreciation thereof. Proper
    proceedings with the COMELEC must be conducted to answer who between the two
    candidates was duly elected. Thus, the assailed resolution must be set aside for being
    procedurally and substantially infirm. COMELEC, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
    functions, is bound to follow the provisions set forth in Section 3, Article IX-C of the
    1987 Constitution. Thus, when the COMELEC is exercising its quasi-judicial powers, it
    is constitutionally mandated to decide the case first in division, and En Banc only upon
    motion for reconsideration. It is the COMELEC division that has original appellate
    jurisdiction to resolve an appeal to an election protest decided by a trial court. The
    Special Second Division of the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
    immediately transferred to the COMELEC En Banc a case that ought to be heard and
    decided by a division. The jurisdiction of a court or an agency existing quasi-judicial
    functions (such as COMELEC) over the subject-matter of an action is conferred only by
    the Constitution or by law. Jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the agreement of the parties,
    acquired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the
    parties. Neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence of the court, more particularly
    so in election cases where the interest involved transcends those of the contending
    parties

    You might also like