G.R. No. 107987 - MARCH 1993 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 107987March 31, 1993 Jose M. Bulaong vs. Comelec, et al. G.R. No. 104266March 31, 1993 Province of Pangasinan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 103038March 31, 1993 Julia Ang Eng Mariano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 99886March 31, 1993 John H. Osmeña vs. Oscar Orbos, et al. G.R. No. 97747March 31, 1993 Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Dev't., Corp., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 97609March 31, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente R. Miñano G.R. No. L-58010March 31, 1993 Emilia O'laco, et al. vs. Valentin Co Cho Chit, et al. G.R. No. 91014March 31, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Elmer G. Mapa G.R. No. 102358March 30, 1993 Sps. Vicente And Gloria Manalo vs. Nieves Roldan-Confesor G.R. No. 104782March 30, 1993 Nely T. Raspado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104315March 30, 1993 Samuel Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104189March 30, 1993 Amelia Larobis vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104044March 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Navaja G.R. No. 102918March 30, 1993 Jose V. Nessia vs. Jesus M. Fermin, et al. G.R. No. 101268March 30, 1993 Mehitabel Furniture Company, Inc., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 100993March 30, 1993 Concepcion Muñoz Divina vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 96770March 30, 1993 Hermenegildo Agdeppa vs. Emiliana Ibe G.R. No. 96090March 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Lago G.R. Nos. 92793-94March 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Roberto A. Bagang G.R. No. 91734March 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Victor Bormeo G.R. No. 87214March 30, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Emilio Sadiangabay G.R. No. 76118March 30, 1993 Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 72200March 30, 1993 Sanpiro Finance Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-48359 March 30, 1993 Manolo P. Cerna vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. P-88-263March 30, 1993 Mariano R. Nalupta, Jr. vs. Honesto G. Tapec A.C. No. 3923March 30, 1993 Concordia B. Garcia vs. Crisanto L. Francisco G.R. No. 101566March 26, 1993 Florencio A. Ruiz, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101742March 25, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Asterio A. Escosio, et al. G.R. No. 105851March 24, 1993 Myrene Padilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101761March 24, 1993 National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 95029March 24, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Adolfo N. Pascual G.R. No. 90391March 24, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Salih S. Juma G.R. No. 85951March 24, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Alvaro Suitos, et al. G.R. No. 70451March 24, 1993 Henry H. Gaw vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 101741March 23, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Adly Hubilo G.R. No. 101451March 23, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Alex V. Regalario, et al. G.R. No. 100913March 23, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Martin Casao G.R. No. 97612March 23, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Amania, et al. G.R. No. 95455 March 23, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Abejero, et al. G.R. No. 102955March 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Adrian G. Enriquez G.R. No. 102351March 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Mario S. Libungan G.R. No. 100332March 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Maria Dagdagan, et al. G.R. No. 92049March 22, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Juan U. Moreno, et al. G.R. No. 91228March 22, 1993 Puromines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 91133March 22, 1993 Romina M. Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 88632March 22, 1993 Teodulo Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 82457March 22, 1993 Inocente Leonardo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-68464March 22, 1993 Francisco D. Yap, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. A.M. No. P-92-697March 22, 1993 Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. vs. Alberto D. Almeida A.M. No. MTJ-91-622March 22, 1993 Manuel T. Ubarra vs. Luzviminda M. Mapalad A.M. No. P-90-512March 22, 1993 Crispin Carreon, et al. vs. Eduardo Mendiola, et al. A.M. No. P-89-296March 22, 1993 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Leticia Villar-Nool G.R. No. 102132March 19, 1993 Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services vs. Ruben V. Abarquez, et al. G.R. No. 99041March 19, 1993. People of the Philippines vs. Victor Tapic, et Al G.R. No. 97749March 19, 1993 Salvador Buazon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97070March 19, 1993 Arturo Gravina, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 96721March 19, 1993 Occ. Land Transportation Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 95771March 19, 1993 Lawrence Bowe, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 95450March 19, 1993 Home Insurance And Guaranty Corp. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 93476March 19, 1993 A' Prime Security Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 102300March 17, 1993 Citibank, N.A. vs. Segundino G. Chua, et al. G.R. No. 97393March 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo S. Bernardo, et al. G.R. No. 84607March 19, 1993 Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Edilberto G. Sandoval, et al. G.R. No. 82829March 19, 1993 Jam Transportation. Co. Inc. vs. Luis Hermosa Flores, et al. G.R. No. L-68555March 19, 1993 Prime White Cement Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 102826March 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Labao et al. G.R. No. 102722March 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Armin Besana G.R. No. 102045March 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Luz Carpio Vda. De Quijano, et al. G.R. No. 101689March 17, 1993 Carlito U. Alvizo vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 101004March 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Raul Ponferada , et al. G.R. No. 94053March 17, 1993 Republic vs. Gregorio Nolasco G.R. No. 88802March 17, 1993 Froilan C. Gervasio, et al. vs. Rolando V. Cuaño, et al. G.R. No. 75295March 17, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Esrael Amondina, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-89-329March 17, 1993 Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Pedro N. Laggui, et al. G.R. No. 102126March 12, 1993 Angelica Ledesma vs. in Re: Cipriano Pedrosa A.M. No. RTJ-91-666March 12, 1993 Spouses Antonio F. Sabado et al. vs. Novato T. Cajigal G.R. No. 106982March 11, 1993 Syndicated Media Access Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102704March 10, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Cordencio Chatto G.R. No. 100594March 10, 1993 Binalbagan Tech. Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 95847-48March 10, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Gabriel B. Gerente G.R. No. 89373March 9, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Yolanda Gesmundo G.R. No. 85419March 9, 1993 Development Bank of Rizal vs. Sima Wei, et al. G.R. No. 85273March 9, 1993 Government Service Insurance System vs. Genaro C. Gines, et al. G.R. No. 104583March 8, 1993 Developers Group of Companies, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104523March 8, 1993 Arms Taxi, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 101256March 8, 1993 Spouses Pepito Laus vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101202March 8, 1993 Ramon A. Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 96949March 8, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo S. Narito G.R. Nos. 96123-24March 8, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo C. Manalo G.R. No. 94960March 8, 1993 Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Vladimir P.L. Sampang, et al. G.R. No. 74678March 8, 1993 Bank of the Philippines Islands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-92-655March 8, 1993 Licerio P. Nique vs. Felipe G. Zapatos G.R. No. 106847March 5, 1993 Patricio P. Diaz vs. Santos B. Adiong, et al. G.R. No. 106556March 5, 1993 Aurora P. Crispino vs. Fortunato V. Panganiban, et al. G.R. No. 101897March 5, 1993 Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101766March 5, 1993 Daniel S.L. Borbon II, et al. vs. Bienvenido B. Laguesma, et al. G.R. No. 98147March 5, 1993 Nimfa G. Ramirez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97957March 5, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Lase G.R. No. 97068March 5, 1993 Fil-Pride Shipping Co., Inc., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 95918March 5, 1993 Lucio M. Cayaba vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 90349March 5, 1993 Edwin Gesulgon vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 85534March 5, 1993 Baptist Bible College, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 84847March 5, 1993 Henry Koa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 81852-53March 5, 1993 Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 78115March 5, 1993 Dominga Regidor, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-60501March 5, 1993 Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et Al G.R. No. L-57312March 5, 1993 Leonor Delos Angeles, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 95849March 4, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Lucio Martinez G.R. No. 103396March 3, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio B. Deocariza G.R. No. 96053March 3, 1993 Josefina Tayag, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94125March 3, 1993 Jesus Miguel Yulo vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. Nos. 91711-15March 3, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Dino J. Alforte et al. G.R. No. 90027March 3, 1993 Ca Agro-Industrial Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 86941March 3, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Basay, et al. G.R. No. 83851March 3, 1993 Visayan Sawmill Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. P-92-698March 3, 1993 Chito Valenton, et al. vs. Alfonso Melgar G.R. No. 101333March 2, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Luis C. Samson, et al. G.R. No. 100658March 2, 1993 Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 96969March 2, 1993 Romeo P. Flores vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 73246March 2, 1993 Director of Lands, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 106971March 1, 1993 Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., et al. vs. Neptali A. Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. 105409March 1, 1993 Master Tours And Travel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 98933March 1, 1993 Egypt Air Local Employees Assoc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 98457March 1, 1993 Sps. Amador B. Surban & Severa S. Surban, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 98182March 1, 1993 Pastor Ferrer vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97505March 1, 1993 Ramon U. Villareal vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 95322March 1, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Pablito Domasian, et al. G.R. No. 95770March 1, 1993 Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Superintendent of Schools of Cebu G.R. No. 94542March 1, 1993 Sps. Francisco Jimenez And Mary H. Jimenez vs. Catalino Macaraig, et al. G.R. No. 94528March 1, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Peter Cadevida, et Al G.R. No. 94471March 1, 1993 People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Villagracia, et al. G.R. No. 79253March 1, 1993 United States of America, et al. vs. Luis R. Reyes, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-88-216March 1, 1993 Ben Medina vs. Leticia Mariano De Guia The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jose M. Bulaong vs. Comelec, et al. Province of Pangasinan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Julia Ang Eng Mariano vs. Court of Appeals, et al. John H. Osmeña vs. Oscar Orbos, et al. Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Dev't., Corp., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Vicente R. Miñano Emilia O'laco, et al. vs. Valentin Co Cho Chit, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Elmer G. Mapa Sps. Vicente And Gloria Manalo vs. Nieves Roldan-Confesor Nely T. Raspado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Samuel Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Amelia Larobis vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Navaja Jose V. Nessia vs. Jesus M. Fermin, et al. Mehitabel Furniture Company, Inc., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Concepcion Muñoz Divina vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Hermenegildo Agdeppa vs. Emiliana Ibe People of the Philippines vs. Johnny Lago People of the Philippines vs. Roberto A. Bagang People of the Philippines vs. Victor Bormeo People of the Philippines vs. Emilio Sadiangabay Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Sanpiro Finance Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Manolo P. Cerna vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Mariano R. Nalupta, Jr. vs. Honesto G. Tapec Concordia B. Garcia vs. Crisanto L. Francisco Florencio A. Ruiz, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Asterio A. Escosio, et al. Myrene Padilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. National Sugar Refineries Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Adolfo N. Pascual People of the Philippines vs. Salih S. Juma People of the Philippines vs. Alvaro Suitos, et al. Henry H. Gaw vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Adly Hubilo People of the Philippines vs. Alex V. Regalario, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Martin Casao People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Amania, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rudy Abejero, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Adrian G. Enriquez People of the Philippines vs. Mario S. Libungan People of the Philippines vs. Maria Dagdagan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan U. Moreno, et al. Puromines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Romina M. Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Teodulo Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Inocente Leonardo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Francisco D. Yap, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. vs. Alberto D. Almeida Manuel T. Ubarra vs. Luzviminda M. Mapalad Crispin Carreon, et al. vs. Eduardo Mendiola, et al. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Leticia Villar-Nool Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services vs. Ruben V. Abarquez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Victor Tapic, et Al Salvador Buazon, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Arturo Gravina, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Occ. Land Transportation Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Lawrence Bowe, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Home Insurance And Guaranty Corp. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. A' Prime Security Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Citibank, N.A. vs. Segundino G. Chua, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo S. Bernardo, et al. Republic of the Philippines, et al. vs. Edilberto G. Sandoval, et al. Jam Transportation. Co. Inc. vs. Luis Hermosa Flores, et al. Prime White Cement Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Labao et al. People of the Philippines vs. Armin Besana People of the Philippines vs. Luz Carpio Vda. De Quijano, et al. Carlito U. Alvizo vs. Sandiganbayan People of the Philippines vs. Raul Ponferada , et al. Republic vs. Gregorio Nolasco Froilan C. Gervasio, et al. vs. Rolando V. Cuaño, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Esrael Amondina, et al. Rodolfo T. Allarde vs. Pedro N. Laggui, et al. Angelica Ledesma vs. in Re: Cipriano Pedrosa Spouses Antonio F. Sabado et al. vs. Novato T. Cajigal Syndicated Media Access Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cordencio Chatto Binalbagan Tech. Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gabriel B. Gerente People of the Philippines vs. Yolanda Gesmundo Development Bank of Rizal vs. Sima Wei, et al. Government Service Insurance System vs. Genaro C. Gines, et al. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Arms Taxi, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Spouses Pepito Laus vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ramon A. Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo S. Narito People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo C. Manalo Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Vladimir P.L. Sampang, et al. Bank of the Philippines Islands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Licerio P. Nique vs. Felipe G. Zapatos Patricio P. Diaz vs. Santos B. Adiong, et al. Aurora P. Crispino vs. Fortunato V. Panganiban, et al. Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Daniel S.L. Borbon II, et al. vs. Bienvenido B. Laguesma, et al. Nimfa G. Ramirez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Lase Fil-Pride Shipping Co., Inc., et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Lucio M. Cayaba vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Edwin Gesulgon vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Baptist Bible College, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Henry Koa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa (IBM) vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Dominga Regidor, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et Al Leonor Delos Angeles, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lucio Martinez People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio B. Deocariza Josefina Tayag, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jesus Miguel Yulo vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dino J. Alforte et al. Ca Agro-Industrial Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Basay, et al. Visayan Sawmill Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Chito Valenton, et al. vs. Alfonso Melgar People of the Philippines vs. Luis C. Samson, et al. Wyeth-Suaco Laboratories, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Romeo P. Flores vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Director of Lands, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., et al. vs. Neptali A. Gonzales, et al. Master Tours And Travel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Egypt Air Local Employees Assoc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. Sps. Amador B. Surban & Severa S. Surban, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pastor Ferrer vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ramon U. Villareal vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pablito Domasian, et al. Roel Ebralinag, et al. vs. Superintendent of Schools of Cebu Sps. Francisco Jimenez And Mary H. Jimenez vs. Catalino Macaraig, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Peter Cadevida, et Al People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Villagracia, et al. United States of America, et al. vs. Luis R. Reyes, et al. Ben Medina vs. Leticia Mariano De Guia The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 107987. March 31, 1993.
JOSE M. BULAONG, M.D., petitioner, vs. COMELEC, FIRST DIVISION, and LUIS VILLAFUERTE, respondents.
Chaves, Hechanova & Lim Law Offices for petitioner.
Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla for private respondent.
Simando & Associates for intervenor.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; REFERRAL OF PENDING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION IN A DIVISION TO THE COMELEC EN BANC, NOT MANDATORY; UNANIMOUS VOTE OF DIVISION MEMBERS NECESSARY TO BE CONSIDERED EN BANC. — It is not mandatory on the part of a division of the COMELEC to refer all pending motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. Being an interlocutory matter, the question now before us is whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to refer petitioner's motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. It is our opinion that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. For said motion to be considered en banc, it requires the unanimous vote of the members of the division as mandated by Section 2 Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In the case at bar, there was an absence of such vote. Instead of withholding its decision on such interlocutory matter, the First Division of the COMELEC decided to exercise its power under Section 6 of Rule 20 of the COMELEC Rules with states: "When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of voters with voting records, book of voters and other documents used in the election to be brought before the Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots . . .
2. ID.; ID.; MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE AGAINST A DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COMELEC. — A mandamus proceeding involving a discretionary power of the COMELEC does not lie. A perusal of the aforecited section impliedly reveals the discretionary power of the COMELEC Division or En Banc to order a revision of ballots. This can be gleaned from the use of the phrase, "whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so demand." Petitioner is to be reminded that mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. It cannot compel the doing of an act involving the exercise of discretion one way or the other. Undoubtedly, the First Division of the COMELEC was within its powers in designating Manila as the venue of the revision of ballots.
3. ID.; ID.; MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONS FILED WITHIN THE FIVE (5) DAY REGLEMENTARY PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2, RULE 19, COMELEC RULES, CAN BE REFERRED TO THE COMELEC EN BANC. — Even if we are to consider the case at bar as falling within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc by virtue of Section 3 of Rule 5(c) of the COMELEC Rules, it goes without saying that only motions for reconsideration filed within the five (5) day reglementary period as prescribed by Section 2 of Rule 19 of said Rules can be referred to the COMELEC en banc. Petitioner should have filed his motion for reconsideration on or before September 21, 1992 considering that he received the COMELEC's order dated September 9, 1992 on September 16, 1992.
D E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J p:
Petitioner Jose M. Bulaong, M.D. and private respondent Luis Villafuerte were both candidates for the office of the provincial governor of Camarines Sur in the May 11, 1992 local elections. Petitioner, having obtained a total of 184,654 votes as against private respondent's vote of 155,359 or a difference of 29,295 votes, was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as the duly elected governor on June 30, 1992. Accordingly, petitioner took his oath of office on July 1, 1992.
On July 9, 1992, private respondent filed an election protest questioning the precinct results of ten (10) Municipalities of Baao, Buhi, Cabusao, Calabanga, Libmanan, Pamplona, Pasacao, Pili, San Fernando and Sipocot end the City of Iriga. Subsequently, on August 21, 1992, private respondent filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the venue for the ballot revision proceedings be conducted at the main office of the Commission on Elections in Intramuros, Manila. 1 Petitioner opposed private respondent's prayer citing that ballot revision proceedings need not be held in Manila since there was no untoward incident that happened during the canvassing of votes from May 12 to May 30, 1992 in Naga City.
Acting on private respondent's prayer, the First Division of the COMELEC through its order dated September 9, 1992 granted private respondent's prayer for a revision of ballots to be held in Manila. 2 This order was received by petitioner on September 16, 1992.
On September 21,1992, petitioner, fearing that his motion for reconsideration might not be finished on time, filed an "Urgent Motion for One-day Extension." 3 A day after or on September 22, 1992, petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration dated September 21, 1992. 4
There being no resolution yet on his motion for extension, petitioner then filed a "Supplement to Urgent Motion for One-day Extension," on October 6, 1992. 5
On October 12, 1992, petitioner received his copy of the COMELEC's order dated October 6, 1992 denying petitioner's urgent motion for one day extension. 6 On October 14, 1992, petitioner moved to reconsider. 7
On October 19,1992, the COMELEC thru its First Division denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated September 21, 1992. 8 On the same day, petitioner also filed an Omnibus motion praying that his two motions for reconsideration (Annexes G and J) be certified to the COMELEC en banc pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. 9
On October 30, 1992, petitioner filed with the COMELEC en banc a manifestation end motion praying that his motions for reconsideration 10 and his Omnibus Motion 11 filed with the First Division be ordered certified to it for resolution. 12 On December 3, 1992, the First Division of the COMELEC denied petitioner's manifestation that its motions for reconsiderations be certified to the COMELEC en banc because the order directing the Provincial Election Supervisor of Camarines Sur to immediately send the 649 ballot boxes to Manila is merely interlocutory. 13
Hence, this instant petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the order to the First Division of the COMELEC dated September 9,1992. On December 14,1992, this Court issued a temporary restraining order against public respondent.
On January 26, 1992, Marito Bernales, a candidate for the position of provincial board member in Camarines Sur, filed a motion for intervention alleging that the temporary restraining order we issued has affected the outcome of his electoral protest with the COMELEC (EPC 92-38), his votes being in the same contested ballots subject of the revision proceedings in the case at bar. We granted movant's motion to intervene in our resolution dated February 9, 1992.
The issue at hand is whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it refused to refer petitioner's motions for reconsideration 14 to the COMELEC en banc notwithstanding the mandate of Section 5 of Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (COMELEC Rules) which provides that:
"How motion for reconsideration disposed of — Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall within twenty four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter, certify the case to the Commission en banc."
While petitioner concedes that the order of the COMELEC designating Manila as the venue of the revision proceedings dated September 9, 1992 is interlocutory, petitioner nonetheless contends that a reading of Section 2 of Rule 3 15 in conjunction with Section 5 (c) of the same rule 16 would reveal that it is the duty of the First Division of the COMELEC to refer his motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc, since the matter concerning the venue of the revision of ballots is a substantial issue which the latter should review. 17
Petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus he issued directing the First Division of the COMELEC to certify and elevate his motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc.
We vote to dismiss the instant petition. It is not mandatory on the part of a division of the COMELEC to refer all pending motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc.
Admittedly, the order regarding the revision of ballots is an interlocutory order because it still requires a party to perform certain acts leading to the final adjudication of a case. 18 The order in the case at bar is for the Provincial Election Supervisor of Camarines Sur to transfer the ballot boxes from Camarines Sur to Manila for a recount and revision of ballots, for the purpose of determining who won the gubernatorial race in Camarines Sur.
Being an interlocutory matter, the question now before us is whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to refer petitioner's motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. It is our opinion that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
For said motion to be considered en banc, it requires the unanimous vote of the members of the division as mandated by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In the case at bar, there was an absence of such vote. Instead of withholding its decision on such interlocutory matter, the First Division of the COMELEC decided to exercise its power under Section 6 of Rule 20 of the COMELEC Rules which states:
"When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of voters with voting records, book of voters and other documents used in the election to be brought before the Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots . . .
"The revision of ballots shall be made in the office of the Clerk of Court concerned or at such places as the Commission or Division shall designate, and shall be completed within three (3) months from the date of the order, unless otherwise directed by the Commission." (Emphasis provided)
Similarly, a mandamus proceeding involving a discretionary power of the COMELEC does not lie. A perusal of the aforecited section impliedly reveals the discretionary power of the COMELEC Division or En Banc to order a revision of ballots. This can be gleaned from the use of the phrase, "whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so demand." Although in most instances the revision of ballots takes place in the office of the Clerk of Court concerned, revision of ballots may also be held in "such places as the Commission or Division shall designate." Petitioner is to be reminded that mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. It cannot compel the doing of an act involving the exercise of discretion one way or the other. 19 Undoubtedly, the First Division of the COMELEC was within its powers in designating Manila as the venue of the revision of ballots.
Even if we are to consider the case at bar as falling within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc by virtue of Section 3 of Rule 5(c) of the COMELEC Rules, it goes without saying that only motions for reconsideration filed within the five (5) day reglementary period as prescribed by Section 2 of Rule 19 20 of said Rules can be referred to the COMELEC en banc. Petitioner should have filed his motion for reconsideration on or before September 21, 1992 considering that he received the COMELEC's order dated September 9, 1992 on September 16, 1992. Petitioner may have been overly optimistic in expecting that his "urgent motion for one-day extension" would be granted forthwith by the First Division, which it did not. Hence, upon the lapse of five (5) days, the order of the COMELEC dated September 9, 1992 can no longer be questioned; much less can it be referred to the COMELEC en banc.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued by this court against the First Division of the COMELEC enjoining the transfer of ballot boxes to Manila is hereby LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C . J ., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Campos, Jr. and Quiason, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1. Annex C, Rollo, pp. 46-47.
2. Annex E, p. 55.
3. Annex F, p. 59.
4. Annex G, p.61.
5. Annex H p. 71.
6. Annex I, p. 74.
7. Annex J, Rollo, p. 75.
8. Annex K, Rollo, p. 81.
9. Annex L, p.82.
10. Annexes G, J and L.
11. Annex L, p. 82.
12. Annex M, p. 87.
13. Annex N, Rollo, pp. 93-95.
14. Annexes G, J, and L.
15. Section 2. The Commission en banc. — The Commission shall sit en banc in cases hereinafter specifically provided, in all other cases where a division is not authorized to act, or where upon a unanimous vote of all the Members of a Division, an interlocutory matter or issue relative to an action or proceeding before it is decided to be referred to the Commission en banc. (Emphasis provided)
16. Section 5(c). Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc.
17. Rollo, p. 12.
18. Nepomuceno v. Salazar, G.R. No. 37165, May 15, 1989, 173 SCRA 366.
19. Mateo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83354, April 25, 1991,196 SCRA 280.
20. Section 2. Period for filing motions for reconsideration. — A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution of implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling. (Emphasis provided)