This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[16] (Underscoring supplied) While the filing of a protest ex abundante ad cautela[17] is not considered an abandonment of the petition for correction of manifest errors, this Court quotes with approval the following observations of the COMELEC in brushing aside as mere afterthought the claim of Montilla in a manifestation he subsequently filed that his election protest was filed ex abundante ad cautela and that he inadvertently omitted to indicate in its caption that it was one such:In an effort perhaps to cure the defect, Montilla filed a manifestation stating that it was actually [ex abundante] ad cautela but that he inadvertently omitted to caption the protest as such. This however should not be given weight. A reading of the allegation in the protest reveals that there was no mention therein that it was only filed as a precautionary measure in case his petition for correction of manifest error is resolved adversely. There was even no mention therein that a case for correction of manifest error and annulment between the same parties is pending before the Commission. To top it all, petitioner Montilla even asked for an immediate relief in his protest, i.e. an order to direct the concerned Election Officers and Treasurers to bring all the ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia in the protested municipalities. Verily, the protest was not [ex abundante] ad cautela and the manifestation was a mere afterthought.[18] (Underscoring supplied) As for the case of petitioner Arzagon, indeed, he failed to comply with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the pertinent provision of which reads: | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Mitmug v. Commission on Elections,[10] we further held that before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two conditions must concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless results in a failure to elect; and, second, the votes cast would affect the result of the election. In the case at bar, both conditions are not present. | |||||