GABRIEL GARDUCE BASARTE VS COMELEC

GR NO 169413 MAY 9, 2007

FACTS: Basarte and Noel Jarito were candidates for municipal mayor. After the Municipal Board of
Canvassers (MBC) canvassed the election returns, Basarte filed an objection regarding the inclusion of a
certain election return alleging that it was tampered, altered, and the second page was missing. The
respondent dismissed Basarte’s action.

ISSUE: should the subject election return be excluded?

RULING: NO. Basarte failed to prove that the election return sought to be annulled would materially affect
the results of the election as required under Section 243(d) of the Omnibus Election Code.

CARLOS VS ANGELES
G.R. NO. 142907 NOVEMBER 29, 2000

FACTS: Carlos was proclaimed as the elected mayor over Serapio with a margin of 17,007 votes.
Serapio filed an election protest and was favoured by the RTC judge Angeles, disregarding the 17,007
difference finding the existence of badges of fraud attributable to Carlos. The RTC declared Serapio as
the winner.

ISSUE: does the supreme court have jurisdiction and not the RTC?

RULING: YES. The RTC committed a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court and COMELEC
have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of trial
courts of general jurisdiction in election cases involving elective officials. The court that takes jurisdiction
first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

NAVARRO VS COMELEC and MIRANDA

FACTS: The incumbent mayor died thus creating a vacancy, the vice-mayor succeeded him and the
highest ranking member of the Sanggunian- Danny Tamayo became the vice- mayor. To fill the vacancy
in the Sanggunian, the governor appointed Navarro, who belonged to the same party as Tamayo, as
member. Private respondents argued that the appointment was null and void, that the appointee must
come from said former vice-mayor’s political party.

ISSUE: is the appointment of Navarro as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan Valid?

RULING: YES. The appointee shall come from the political party as that of the Sanggunian member who
caused the vacancy. The right given to a political party to nominate a replacement where a permanent
vacancy occurs in the Sanggunian is to maintain the party representation as willed by the people in the
election.
EMMANUEL RELAMPAGOS VS ROSITA CUMBA AND COMELEC
GR NO 118861 APRIL 27, 1995

FACTS: Relampagos and Cumba were the Candidates for the position of mayor. Cumba won with a
margin of 22 votes, Relampagos filed an election protest and was declared the winner with a margin of 6
votes. Cumba then filed a petition for certiorari to annul the same.

ISSUE: does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in
election cases where it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction?

RULING: YES.  the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 vests the COMELEC the authority to
issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. The Comelec, by constitutional mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

BANAGA jr VS COMELEC
GR 134696 JULY 31, 2000

FACTS: Banaga and Bernabe were candidates for vice mayor, the latter won with a margin of 3,007
votes. Banaga filed an action for petition to declare failure of elections and/or annulment of elections.
COMELEC dismissed Banaga’s suit.

ISSUE: can a petition be treated as both a declaration of failure of election and/or annulment of election?

RULING: NO. Banaga filed his petition as a special action and paid the corresponding fee therefor. Thus,
the petition was docketed as SPA-98-383. This conforms to petitioner’s categorization of his petition as
one to declare a failure of elections or annul election results. In contrast, an election protest is assigned a
docket number starting with EPC, meaning election protest case.

COQUILLA VS COMELEC
GR NO. 151914 JULY 31, 2002

FACTS: Coquilla was a naturalized American Citizen who later took his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines on November 10, 2000, 11 days after he registered as a voter and after 3 months filed a
certificate of candidacy stating that he had been a resident for 2 years. His opponent sought to cancel
Coquilla’s candidacy but before the COMELEC could render a decision, Coquilla was proclaimed as
winner.

ISSUE: did Coquilla comply with the residency requirement?

RULING: NO. Coquilla’s statement in the COC is not true. This is a misrepresentation of a material fact
justifying the cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. The cancellation of petitioner’s certificate
of candidacy in this case is thus fully justified.
BULAONG VS COMELEC
GR NO. 116206 FEBRUARY 7, 1995

FACTS: Bulaong and Villafuerte were candidates for Governor, Bulaong was proclaimed as winner.
Villafuerte filed an election protest which resulted to a reversal of the results after reviewing the ballots in
Manila. Bulaong objected stating that there had been tampering when the ballots were transported and
was given ample time to investigate the ballots, he requested for an extension to do the same.

ISSUE: Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion?

RULING: NO. The denial of the request for additional time to investigate election documents after given
55 days is proper. The fact that there is a “huge discrepancy” between the result of the canvass and that
of the revision is no proof of grave abuse of discretion in the denial of his/her request.

SOLLER VS COMELEC AND SAULONG

FACTS: Soller and Saulong were both mayor, soller was proclaimed as mayor and saulong filed a
petition to annul the proclamation and a later an election protest with the RTC. The petitioner filed a
motion to dismiss which was denied by the RTC and the COMELEC.

ISSUE: does the COMELEC en banc have the authority to decide on the case?

RULING: NO. The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of election
protests filed with the lower courts falls within the division of the COMELEC, not with the COMELEC En
Banc.

REYES VS RTC OF MINDORO

FACTS: Reyes and Comia were candidates for members of the sanggunaing bayan, the former was
proclaimed as the 8th winning candidate. Comia filed an election protest before the trial court alleging that
a mistake was committed in counting the votes, which was later granted. Reyes filed a motion for
reconsideration and was dismissed by the COMELEC 1st division and en banc.

ISSUE: Can filing of the motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc may be dispensed of
by the petitioner?

RULING: NO. A motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc is required for the filing of a
petition for certiorari. Reyes’ argument that this may be dispensed with because the only question raised
in his petition is a question of law is not correct.

GARCES VS CA, EMPEYNADO AND CONCEPCION

FACTS: Garces replaced Concepcion- after being transferred- as the Election registrar, however,
Empeynado who was the election supervisor prohibited Garces from assuming Concepcion’s post.
Concepcion refused to transfer as she did not request it. Garces filed before the RTC a petition for
mandamus with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and damages against Empeynado and
Concepcion. 

ISSUE: is the case cognizable by the Supreme Court?

RULING: NO. the case is cognizable in the RTC. There was no case or matter filed before the
COMELEC.  On the contrary, it was the COMELEC’s resolution that triggered this Controversy.  The
controversy involves an appointive, not an elective, official. 

JAMIL VS COMELEC
GR NO. 123648 DECEMBER 15, 1997

FACTS: Jamil and Balindong were the candidates for mayor in Sultan Gumander. Balindong objected the
inclusion of some ballots due to irregularities, this was denied and Jamil was proclaimed as winner.
Balindong appealed, it was granted and he was then proclaimed as the winner and not Jamil.

ISSUE: are the proclamations made valid?

RULING: NO. Both proclamations were illegal. It is a settled rule that an incomplete canvass of votes is
illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. Furthermore, the SC ordered the COMELEC to
proclaim and conduct investigations

MENDOZA VS COMELEC
GR 188308 OCTOBER 15, 2009

FACTS: Mendoza was proclaimed as the winning candidate as governor, to which Pagdanganan filed an
election protest thereto. The COMELEC then conducted a revision and transferred some ballots to the
Senate Electoral Tribunal, Mendoza moved to suspend further proceedings.

ISSUE: does the COMELEC have Judicial power?

RULING: NO. Judicial power in our country is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law. The COMELECs adjudicative function is quasi-judicial since it is a
constitutional body, other than a court, vested with authority to decide election contest.

AMBIL VS COMELEC
GR 143398 OCTOBER 25, 2000

FACTS: Ambil and Ramirez both ran for governor, the former was proclaimed as the winner. Ramirez
then filed an election protest, which the former Commissioner granted but was disagreed by two other
commissioners. Upon appointment of a new commissioner, Ramirez was instantly proclaimed as the
winner.

ISSUE: Did the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of Jurisdiction?
RULING: NO. The case at bar is an election protest which falls within the original jurisdiction of the
COMELEC in division. 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.

CAGAS VS COMELEC
GR 194139 JANUARY 24, 2012

FACTS: Cagas was proclaimed the winner for the gubernatorial race against Bautista, the latter filed an
election protest. Cagas raised special affirmative defences which the COMELEC 1 st div and en banc
denied, this prompted Cagas to file a petition for certiorari before the SC. Bautista countered that Cagas
cannot do so since they are mere interlocutory orders.

ISSUE: Can the SC review on certiorari an interlocutory order issued by the COMELEC?

RULING: NO. Although Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution confers on the Court the power to
review any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, it limits such power to a final decision or resolution
of the COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the
COMELEC

GUIEB VS FONTANILLA
GR 118118 AUGUST 14, 1995

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: