LUISK.
LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC),
CITIZENS’ BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA S. JOSE
SHERWIN N. TUGNA, and CINCHONA CRUZ-GONZALES
G.R.
No. 193808
June
26, 2012
FACTS:
On 5 July 2010, the COMELEC First
Division issued a Resolution expunging the Certificate of Nomination which
included herein petitioners as representatives of the party-list group known as
Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC). The COMELEC en banc affirmed the
said Resolution, prompting Luis Lokin, Jr. and Teresita F. Planas to file the
present Petition for Certiorari. Petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the COMELEC in issuing both Resolutions.
Petitioners contend that the COMELEC never
should have taken cognizance of respondents’ Petition to Expunge and/or for
Disqualification. They have reached this conclusion by characterizing the
present matter as an intra-corporate dispute and, thus, cognizable only by
special commercial courts, particularly the designated commercial court in this
case, the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City.
Petitioner received a copy of the first
assailed Resolution on 12 July 2010. Upon the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by petitioners on 15 July 2010, the COMELEC en banc issued the second assailed
Resolution on 31 August 2010. This per curiam Resolution was received by petitioners
on 1 September 2010. Petitioners filed the present Petition only on 1 October
2010.
ISSUE:
WON
the petition was filed outside of the requisite period.
RULING:
Yes,
the petition was filed outside of the requisite period.
The
Court held that the review by of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC is
governed specifically by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which states:
Sec. 1. Scope. This
rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of
the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Sec. 2. Mode of
review. A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the
Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
The
exception referred to in Section 2 of this Rule refers precisely to the
immediately succeeding provision, Section 3:
SEC. 3. Time to file
petition.—The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of
a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or
resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned,
shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved
party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be
less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
The above provision allows for a
different period within which to file petitions for certiorari from judgments
of both the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. While Rule 65 provides for a
period of 60 days from notice of judgment sought to be assailed in the Supreme
Court, Section 3 of Rule 64 expressly provides for only 30 days.
Petitioner received a copy of the
first assailed Resolution on 12 July 2010. Upon the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by petitioners on 15 July 2010, the COMELEC en banc issued the second
assailed Resolution on 31 August 2010. This per curiam Resolution was received
by petitioners on 1 September 2010. Petitioners filed the present Petition only
on 1 October 2010, outside of the required period.
No comments:
Post a Comment