DIGEST/KRISABEL MARTINEZ/ELSIE S. CAUSING vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HERNAN D. BIRON, SR

 

G.R. No. 199139               September 9, 2014

ELSIE S. CAUSING
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HERNAN D. BIRON, SR

 

FACTS

Causing assumed office as the Municipal Civil Registrar of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo. However, Mayor Biron issued Office Order No. 13 detailing Catalina V. Belonio, another municipal employee, to the office of the Local Civil Registrar of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo to assume the functions and duties as Local Civil Registrar-designate effective upon receipt of the order.

Causing filed the complaint-affidavit in the Office of the Regional Election Director, Region VI, in Iloilo City, claiming that Office Order No. 12 dated May 28, 2010 issued by Mayor Biron ordering her detail to the Office of the Municipal Mayor, being made within the election period and without prior authority from the COMELEC, was illegal and violative of Sec. 1(A), No. 1, in connection with Sec. 6 (B) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8737, Series of 2009.

Atty. Elizabeth Doronilla, the Provincial Election Supervisor, recommended the dismissal of the complaint-affidavit for lack of probable cause to charge Mayor Biron with the violation of Section (h) of the Omnibus Election Code, as implemented by Resolution No. 8737.

COMELEC En Banc affirmed the findings and recommendation of PES Doronilla, observing that Mayor Biron did not transfer or detail Causing but only required her to physically report to the Mayor’s office and to perform her functions thereat; and that he did not strip her of her functions as the Municipal Civil Registrar, and did not deprive her of her supervisory functions over her staff.

Hence, Causing filed a petition for certiorari.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed because of the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration in the COMELEC

RULING

Yes. The petition for certiorari should be dismissed.

Sec. 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of Court contains a separate rule (Rule 64) on the review of the decisions of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. Rule 64 provides that the period of the filing of the petition for certiorari is within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.

The well-established rule is that the motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The filing of the motion for reconsideration before the resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford to the public respondent the opportunity to correct any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case. Jurisprudence, however, has provided for exceptions to the rule on the requirement of motion for reconsideration.

The court held that none of the exceptions is applicable to the case. Hence, Causing should have filed the motion for reconsideration, especially because there was nothing in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that precluded the filing of the motion for reconsideration in election offense cases. The petition must be dismissed.