Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELLAN MARIE P. CIPRIANO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 215995 2016-01-19	VICE-MAYOR MARCELINA S. ENGLE v. COMELEC EN BANC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
First, the COMELEC Law Department's "ruling" was issued only after the filing of petitioner's COC. Second, with respect to the denial of due course to James L. Engle's COC as a nominee of Lakas-CMD and to petitioner's COC as his substitute, the COMELEC Law Department's letter is not binding and at most, recommendatory. It is settled in jurisprudence that the denial of due course or cancellation of one's COC is not within the administrative powers of the COMELEC, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.[22] We have also previously held that the COMELEC, in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, is mandated by the Constitution to hear and decide such cases first by Division and, upon motion for reconsideration, by the En Banc.[23] In resolving cases to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, the COMELEC cannot merely rely on the recommendations of its Law Department but must conduct due proceedings through one of its divisions.[24] Returning to the case at bar, the COMELEC Second Division only formally ruled on the status of James L. Engle as an independent candidate and the invalidity of petitioner's substitution on July 5, 2013, months after the May 13, 2013 Elections.
	GR No. 191890 2012-12-04	EVALYN I. FETALINO v. COMMISSION ELECTIONS BRION, J.
(3) they now have a vested right over the full retirement benefits provided by RA No. 1568 in view of the finality of Resolution No. 06-1369.[19]
	GR No. 180492 2009-03-13	ELPIDIO B. VALINO v. ALVIN P. VERGARA NACHURA, J.
We acknowledge that Resolution No. 8212 is an issuance in the exercise of the COMELEC's adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 16[22] of R.A. No. 7166. The determination by the COMELEC of the merits of a pre-proclamation case definitely involves the exercise of adjudicatory powers, wherein the COMELEC examines and weighs the parties' pieces of evidence vis-à-vis their respective arguments, and considers whether, on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the case appears to have merit. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that the exercise thereof is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.[23]
	GR No. 177927 2008-02-15	FLORANTE S. QUIZON v. COMELEC and ROBERTO VILLANUEVA PUNO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As a general rule, the writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may only be directed by Mandamus to act but not to act in one way or the other.[9] The denial of due course or cancellation of one's certificate of candidacy is not within the administrative powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.[10] Hence, the Court may only compel COMELEC to exercise such discretion and resolve the matter but it may not control the manner of exercising such discretion. However, as previously discussed, the issuance of a writ commanding COMELEC to resolve the petition for disqualification will no longer serve any purpose since COMELEC has issued its decision on the matter.
	GR No. 178767 2008-01-30	NORMA PATALINGHUG v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
The determination by the COMELEC of the merits of a pre-proclamation case definitely involves the exercise of adjudicatory powers. The COMELEC examines and weighs the parties' pieces of evidence vis-à-vis their respective arguments, and considers whether, on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the case appears to have merit. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.[28]