Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISIDORO L. SORIANO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Respondents also cite Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC. This case was also an election protest case involving candidates for the city council of Muntinlupa City.[41] Petitioners in Soriano, Jr. filed before this court a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order of the COMELEC First Division.[42] While the petition was pending in this court, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the main election protest case.[43] Soriano applied the general rule that only final orders should be questioned with this court. The ponencia for this court, however, acknowledged the exceptions to the general rule in ABS-CBN.[44]
	GR No. 193846 2011-04-12	MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
We cannot subscribe to petitioner's proposition. The landmark case of Repol, as affirmed in the subsequent cases of Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC[6] and Blanco v. COMELEC,[7] leaves no room for equivocation.
	GR No. 185140 2009-06-30	JERRY B. AGUILAR v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
In this case, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his appeal was not resolved by the COMELEC en banc, but by the COMELEC First Division, in obvious violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Stated differently, the division, after dismissing petitioner's appeal, arrogated unto itself the en banc's function of resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration. In Soriano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[21] we emphasized the rule that a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a COMELEC division, except with regard to interlocutory orders, shall be elevated to the COMELEC en banc. Here, there is no doubt that the order dismissing the appeal is not merely an interlocutory, but a final order.[22] It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Presiding Commissioner of the COMELEC First Division to certify the case to the COMELEC en banc within two days from notification of the filing of the motion.
	GR Nos. 178831-32 2009-04-01	JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Instead of asking the Court for what Biraogo opined as a restraining order, Limkaichong filed with this Court, on August 1, 2007, her petition for certiorari assailing the said COMELEC En Banc Resolution pursuant to Section 2,[71] Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, postulating that she had thirty (30) days from July 4, 2007 within which to file the petition, or until August 3, 2007. She cited Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which prescribes the power of this Court to review decisions of the COMELEC,[72] thus:SEC. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
	GR No. 180164 2008-06-17	FLORENTINO P. BLANCO v. COMELEC AZCUNA, J.
Section 7. Each commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. Soriano v. COMELEC[4] and Repol v. COMELEC[5] gave the Court's interpretation of Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution, thus:We have interpreted this constitutional provision to mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The decision must be a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc. The Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the COMELEC. Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for dismissal of the petition. However, this rule is not ironclad. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. COMELEC, we stated -
	GR NO. 152644 2006-02-10	JOHN ERIC LONEY v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
In August 1996, the Department of Justice separately charged petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque ("MTC") with violation of Article 91(B),[4] sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines ("PD 1067"),[5] Section 8[6] of Presidential Decree No. 984 or the National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 ("PD 984"),[7] Section 108[8] of Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 ("RA 7942"),[9] and Article 365[10] of the Revised Penal Code ("RPC") for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property.[11]