8/19/2019 Alabastro_Legaspi vs COMELEC_March 13, 2016

1/3

FELICIANO P. LEGASPI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,ALFREDO GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., RESPONDENTS.G.R. No. 216572, September 01, 2015

Facts

Respondents Germar ran for the position of mayor; Santos ran for the position of counci or; and !s"ui#e ran for the position of #ice$mayor in Nor%a&aray, 'u acan.(etitioner )e&aspi is the Nationa *nity (arty+s bet for mayor of Nor%a&aray durin&the 201 po s.

Respondents Germar and Santos -on. (etitioner ed before the / !)!/ a (etitionfor is"ua i cation a&ainst Germar, Santos, and !s"ui#e for en&a&in& in #otebuyin&.

3he (etition for is"ua i cation -as doc4eted as S( No. 1 $ 2 / and -asassi&ned to the / !)!/ 8irst i#ision. 3he di#ision+s #ote -as an e#en 1$1 sp it.

3hus, the / !)!/ 8irst i#ision ca ed for the constitution of a Specia 8irsti#ision.

n ctober 201 , the / !)!/ Specia 8irst i#ision, by a 2 to 1 #ote,dis"ua i ed Germar and Santos. Respondents e a motion for reconsideration -iththe / !)!/ en banc. 3he / !)!/ en banc, -hich at the time of the #otin& hadon y 6 incumbent members, #oted $2 i.e., members #oted in fa#or of thedis"ua i cation -hi e 2 dissented. 9ence, a ma:ority of at east four #otes -asnot reached. 3hus, it ordered the rehearin& of the case.

fter the rehearin&, the / !)!/ en banc too4 another #ote but the na #oteremained at the eanuary 2015, the / !)!/ en bancissued an rder directin& the dismissa of the of S( No. 1 $ 2 / pursuant toSection 6, Ru e 1= of the 1?? / !)!/ Ru es of (rocedure@1 A / !)!/ Ru es .

Sec. 6. (rocedure if pinion is !"ua y i#ided. $ Bhen the /ommission enbanc is e"ua y di#ided in opinion, or the necessary ma:ority cannot be had,the case sha be reheard, and if on rehearin& no decision is reached, theaction or proceedin& sha be dismissed if ori&ina y commenced in the/ommission; in appea ed cases, the :ud&ment or order appea ed from shastand aCrmed; and in a incidenta matters, the petition or motion sha bedenied. !mphasis ours.

3hus, petitioner ed the present petition ar&uin& that an action can on y beconsidered as ha#in& been Dori&ina y commenced in the commissionEE underSection 6, Ru e 1= of the / !)!/ Ru es -hen that action -as ori&ina y ed beforethe / !)!/ en banc itse f and, as such, is the #ery matter pendin& before it.8urthermore, -hat -as before the / !)!/ en banc -as not the main petition itse f but on y a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the di#ision in S( No. 1 $

2 / . 9ence, the fai ure of the / !)!/ en banc to reach a ma:ority #ote in thiscase shou d resu t, not in the dismissa of the e ectora aspect of S( No. 1 $ 2

/ , but mere y in the denia of the motion for reconsideration and the aCrmanceof the di#isionEs decision.

8/19/2019 Alabastro_Legaspi vs COMELEC_March 13, 2016

2/3

IssueBhether or not the / !)!/ en banc &ra#e y abused its discretion -hen itdismissed the e ectora aspect of S( No. 1 $ 2 / due to it+s Dmisapp icationD of Section 6, Ru e 1= of the / !)!/ Ru es.

Ruling

3he petition is denied.

3he phrase Dori&ina y commenced in the commissionD in Section 6, Ru e 1= of the/ !)!/ Ru es is meant to co#er any action or proceedin& that is ed, at the rstinstance, before the / !)!/F-hether sittin& in di#ision or en bancFascontradistin&uished from cases that are mere y appea ed to it. n the case at bar,the petition -as rst ed -ith the / !)!/ and -as raHed to the 8irst i#ision fordecision. t is a fresh petitionFas it passed upon no other tribuna , body or entityprior to its in& -ith the / !)!/. 9ence, for a intents and purposes, S( No. 1 $

2 / must be considered as an action Dori&ina y commenced in thecommissionD under Section 6, Ru e 1= of the / !)!/ Ru es.

(etitionerEs insistence that the rst eIect under Section 6, Ru e 1= of the / ! )!GRu es ou&ht not to be app ied since -hat -as before the / !)!/ en banc -asmere y a motion for reconsideration and not the petition for dis"ua i cation itse f has no merit.

Section 7 of rtic e 1J$ of the /onstitution ob i&es the / !)!/, i4e the otherconstitutiona commissions, to decide a cases or matters before it by a Dma:ority#ote of a its @mAembers.D Bhen such ma:ority #ote cannot be mustered by the/ !)!/ en banc, Section 6, Ru e 1= of the / !)!/ Ru es pro#ides themechanism to a#ert a non$decision.

Section 6, Ru e 1= speci es the eIects of the / !)!/ en bancEs, fai ure to decidename yK

L f the action or proceedin& is ori&ina y commenced in the / !)!/, suchaction or proceedin& sha be dismissed;

L n appea ed cases, the :ud&ment or order appea ed from sha stand aCrmed;or

L n incidenta matters, the petition or motion sha be denied.

Meri y, -hen an e ection case ori&ina y ed -ith the / !)!/ is rst decided by adi#ision, the subse"uent in& of a motion for reconsideration from that decisionbefore the en banc does not si&nify the initiation of a ne- action or case, but rathera mere continuation of an e

8/19/2019 Alabastro_Legaspi vs COMELEC_March 13, 2016

3/3

un"uestionab y brin& to the fore the app ication of the rst eIect under Section 6,Ru e 1= of the / !)!/ Ru es.