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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 825 views

    8 Ambil vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of a resolution by the COMELEC First Division in an election protest case and to direct the Division to deliberate anew. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that election cases fall under the original jurisdiction of COMELEC in division. A motion for reconsideration of the division's resolution is mandatory before appealing to the COMELEC en banc. As the petitioner did not seek reconsideration, the case was premature and failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is grounds for dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    8 Ambil vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    825 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of a resolution by the COMELEC First Division in an election protest case and to direct the Division to deliberate anew. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that election cases fall under the original jurisdiction of COMELEC in division. A motion for reconsideration of the division's resolution is mandatory before appealing to the COMELEC en banc. As the petitioner did not seek reconsideration, the case was premature and failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is grounds for dismissal.

    Original Description:

    fg

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of a resolution by the COMELEC First Division in an election protest case and to direct the Division to deliberate anew. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that election cases fall under the original jurisdiction of COMELEC in division. A motion for reconsideration of the division's resolution is mandatory before appealing to the COMELEC en banc. As the petitioner did not seek reconsideration, the case was premature and failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is grounds for dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    825 views2 pages

    8 Ambil vs. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of a resolution by the COMELEC First Division in an election protest case and to direct the Division to deliberate anew. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that election cases fall under the original jurisdiction of COMELEC in division. A motion for reconsideration of the division's resolution is mandatory before appealing to the COMELEC en banc. As the petitioner did not seek reconsideration, the case was premature and failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is grounds for dismissal.

    Copyright:

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

    8. Ambil vs.

    COMELEC
    G. R. No. 143398, October 25, 2000
    FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of
    Governor, Eastern Samar during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Provincial
    Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Governor.
    Private respondent filed an election protest with the COMELEC, which was
    assigned to the First Division. Commissioner Guiani prepared and signed a
    proposed resolution in the case. Commissioner Desamito dissented, while
    Commissioner Tancangco wanted to see both positions first before giving her
    decision. On 2/15/00, Commissioner Guiani retired and was replaced. On
    2/24/00, petitioner and respondent received a purported resolution in favor
    of private respondent promulgated on 2/14/00 and signed by Commissioners
    Guiani, Desamito, and Tancangco. The First Division later declared that the
    parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet promulgated. The
    Division later set a date for promulgation of a resolution of the case, and said
    that the aggrieved party could then challenge it through a Motion for
    Reconsideration before the Commission en banc or through a certiorari case
    before the SC. The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the
    promulgation of the resolution and to direct the First Division to deliberate
    anew on the case.
    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. It is within the
    original jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections in division. 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. 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.
    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.
    WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for prematurity.

    You might also like