Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Ambil vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Bisoy Ocneuc
    This case involved an election protest between Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and Jose T. Ramirez for the position of Governor of Eastern Samar. [1] Ambil was proclaimed the winner by the Provincial Board of Canvassers. [2] Ambil filed a petition arguing the Comelec, First Division lacked jurisdiction in scheduling the promulgation of its resolution. [3] The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Comelec, First Division had original jurisdiction over the election protest as mandated by the Constitution. [4] The Court also ruled Ambil failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc before appealing to the Supreme

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ambil vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Bisoy Ocneuc
    1K views2 pages
    This case involved an election protest between Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and Jose T. Ramirez for the position of Governor of Eastern Samar. [1] Ambil was proclaimed the winner by the Provincial Board of Canvassers. [2] Ambil filed a petition arguing the Comelec, First Division lacked jurisdiction in scheduling the promulgation of its resolution. [3] The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Comelec, First Division had original jurisdiction over the election protest as mandated by the Constitution. [4] The Court also ruled Ambil failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc before appealing to the Supreme

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved an election protest between Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and Jose T. Ramirez for the position of Governor of Eastern Samar. [1] Ambil was proclaimed the winner by the Provincial Board of Canvassers. [2] Ambil filed a petition arguing the Comelec, First Division lacked jurisdiction in scheduling the promulgation of its resolution. [3] The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Comelec, First Division had original jurisdiction over the election protest as mandated by the Constitution. [4] The Court also ruled Ambil failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc before appealing to the Supreme

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Ambil vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Bisoy Ocneuc
    This case involved an election protest between Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and Jose T. Ramirez for the position of Governor of Eastern Samar. [1] Ambil was proclaimed the winner by the Provincial Board of Canvassers. [2] Ambil filed a petition arguing the Comelec, First Division lacked jurisdiction in scheduling the promulgation of its resolution. [3] The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Comelec, First Division had original jurisdiction over the election protest as mandated by the Constitution. [4] The Court also ruled Ambil failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc before appealing to the Supreme

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR., petitioner, vs.

    THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION, FORMERLY SECOND DIVISION) and JOSE T. RAMIREZ, respondents. [G.R. No. 143398. October 25, 2000]

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and respondent Jose T. Ramirez were candidates for the position of Governor, Eastern Samar, during the May 11, 1998 elections.i[3] On May 16, 1998, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. as the duly elected Governor, Eastern Samar.

    ISSUE: Whether Comelec, First Division, in scheduling the promulgation of the resolution in the case (EPC Case No. 98-29) acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

    HELD:

    We find the petition without merit. The case at bar is an election protest involving the position of Governor, Eastern Samar.ii[32] It is within the original jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections in division. iii[33] Admittedly, petitioner did not ask for a reconsideration of the divisions resolution or final decision. In like manner, a decision, order or resolution of a division of the Comelec must be reviewed by the Comelec en banc via a motion for reconsideration before the final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory. Under the existing Constitutional scheme, a party to an election case within the jurisdiction of the Comelec in division can not dispense with the filing of a motion for reconsideration of a decision, resolution or final order of the Division of the Commission on Elections because the case would not reach the Comelec en banc without such motion for reconsideration having been filed and resolved by the Division. The instant case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule in certiorari cases dispensing with a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. iv[37] In truth, the exceptions do not apply to election cases where a motion for reconsideration is mandatory by Constitutional fiat to elevate the case to the Comelec en banc, whose final decision is what is reviewable via certiorari before the Supreme Court.v[38] Hence, the petition at bar must be dismissed for prematurity. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal to a party's cause of action and a dismissal based on that ground is tantamount to a dismissal based on lack of cause of action.vi[63] WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for prematurity.

    You might also like