Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GEORGIDI B. AGGABAO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 207264 2013-10-22	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
The rule on adherence of jurisdiction applies to the present case. This rule states that once the jurisdiction of a court attaches, the court cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance; the court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.[35] If at all possible, the withdrawal should be for a meritorious and justifiable reason, and subject to the approval of the Court.
	GR No. 207264 2013-06-25	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
In Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC,[22] citing Aggabao v. COMELEC[23] and Guerrero v. COMELEC,[24] the Court ruled that: The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 178413 2008-03-13	AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III v. COMELEC EN BANC SITTING AS NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 23 August 2007, Pimentel filed before this Court his Comment/Opposition (to Private Respondent's Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss).[15] Pimentel alleged that Zubiri's Motion to Dismiss solely relied on Aggabao v. Commission on Elections.[16] However, Pimentel argued that Aggabao cannot be applied to the instant Petition because of the difference in the factual backgrounds of the two cases. In Aggabao, therein petitioner Aggabao filed his Petition before this Court after the proclamation of therein private respondent Miranda as Congressman for the Fourth District of Isabela; while in the present case, Pimentel already filed his Petition before this Court prior to the proclamation of Zubiri as Senator. Moreover, Pimentel asserted that his Petition questioned not Zubiri's proclamation, but the conduct of the canvass proceedings before the NBC and SPBOC-Maguindanao. He maintained that his case was one of first impression and no existing jurisprudence could be used as precedent for its summary dismissal. Pimentel then reiterated his arguments in his Memorandum that Sections 37 and 38 of Republic Act No. 9369,[17] amending Sections 30 and 15 of Republic Act No. 7166,[18] respectively, significantly affected and changed the nature of canvass proceedings, the nature of the duty of canvassing boards, and the extent of allowable pre-proclamation controversies in Senatorial elections. Based on the foregoing, Pimentel prayed for the denial of Zubiri's Motion to Dismiss.
	GR No. 179285 2008-02-11	IMELDA Q. DIMAPORO v. COMELEC and VICENTE BELMONTE REYES, R.T., J.
The petition is impressed with merit because petitioner has been proclaimed winner of the Congressional elections in the first district of Pampanga, has taken his oath of office as such, and assumed his duties as Congressman. For this Court to take cognizance of the electoral protest against him would be to usurp the function of the House Electoral Tribunal. The alleged invalidity of the proclamation (which had been previously ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection therewith, and despite the pendency of protests of the rival candidates, is a matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal. (Emphasis supplied) This was reiterated in Aggabao v. Commission on Elections:[8]
	GR NO. 172131 2007-04-02	EN BANC LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.[13] Stated in another manner, where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the congressional elections, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an electoral protest with the HRET.[14]
	GR NO. 168411 2007-02-15	BIENVENIDO A. CERBO v. COMELEC CARPIO MORALES, J.
With respect to petitioner Cerbo who ran for the position of congressman, the COMELEC indeed had no jurisdiction over his petition, his opponent respondent Suharto T. Mangudadatu having been proclaimed as such. It is well settled that once a candidate is proclaimed as representative, the opponent's recourse is to file an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, and this holds true even if there is an allegation of nullity of proclamation.[14]