G.R. No. 164439 January 23, 2006 COMELEC a Petition, docketed SPC No.

docketed SPC No. 04- controversy, or through an election protest

233, for Annulment of Proclamation on the within ten days after the proclamation of
JEFFREY L. SANTOS, Petitioner, Basis of Erroneous Canvass/Tallies of Votes. Asistio, instead of a petition for annulment of
vs. Santos alleged that he was a victim of proclamation.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and "dagdag-bawas" and that his votes were
MACARIO E. ASISTIO III, Respondents. reduced in the Statement of Votes while On 29 June 2004, or on the same date of the
Asistio’s votes were increased. Santos further promulgation of the Resolution by the
DECISION alleged that based on the certified true copies COMELEC First Division, the COMELEC
of the NAMFREL’s4 election returns as well En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 7257,
CARPIO, J.: as the Certificates of Votes submitted by the as follows:
poll watchers in the Second District of
The Case Caloocan City, he obtained 46,361 votes RESOLUTION NO. 7257
while Asistio garnered only 45,514 votes.
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari1 Santos prayed for the nullification of the (OMNIBUS RESOLUTION ON
assailing the Resolution2 of the Commission proclamation of Asistio and for his PENDING CASES)
on Elections ("COMELEC") First Division in declaration as the duly elected Councilor of
SPC No. 04-233 and Resolution No. 7257 3 of the Second District of Caloocan City. WHEREAS, in connnection with the
the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC May 10, 2004 National and Local
promulgated the two Resolutions on 29 June The Ruling of the COMELEC First Division Elections, various petitions docketed as
2004. Special Actions, Special Cases and
In a Resolution promulgated on 29 June Special Proceeding Cases and other
The Antecedent Facts 2004, the COMELEC First Division contentious cases were filed with the
dismissed SPC No. 04-233 for lack of merit. Office of the Clerk of the Commission;
Jeffrey L. Santos ("Santos") and Macario E.
Asistio III ("Asistio") were candidates for the The COMELEC First Division ruled that: (1) WHEREAS, the second paragraph of
position of Councilor for the Second District Santos’ lack of watchers and counsel during Sec. 16, Republic Act No. 7166,
of Caloocan City in the 10 May 2004 the early stages of the canvassing provides:
Elections. On 18 May 2004, the City Board proceedings is not a proper ground for the
of Canvassers proclaimed Asistio as annulment of Asistio’s proclamation; (2) the "All pre-proclamation cases pending
councilor-elect for the Second District of documents submitted by Santos, consisting of before the Commission shall be deemed
Caloocan City. Based on the Canvass of a compilation and tabulation of votes which terminated at the beginning of the term
Election Returns and the Statement of Votes, he himself prepared, and which he based on of office involved and the rulings of the
Asistio garnered 45,163 votes and secured the certified true copies of NAMFREL’s election boards of canvassers concerned shall be
sixth and last slot for the position of returns and the originals of various deemed affirmed, without prejudice to
Councilor while Santos placed seventh with Certificates of Votes submitted by the poll the filing of a regular election protest by
44,558 votes. watchers, are not admissible in evidence; and the aggrieved party. However,
(3) Santos should have assailed the proceedings may continue when on the
On 28 May 2004, Santos filed with the proceedings via a pre-proclamation basis of the evidence thus far presented,
the Commission determines that the and (2) immediately preceding shall Commission;
petition appears meritorious and be deemed terminated pursuant to
accordingly issues an order for the Section 16, R.A. 7166 except those ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ordered that
proceeding to continue or when mentioned in paragraph (4). Hence, the proceedings in the cases appearing on the
appropriate order has been issued by the all the rulings of boards of list annexed and made an integral part hereof,
Supreme Court in a petition for canvassers concerned are deemed be continued to be heard and disposed of by
certiorari." affirmed. Such boards of canvassers the Commission.
are directed to reconvene forthwith,
WHEREAS, the Commission has continue their respective canvass and This resolution shall take effect immediately.5
disposed of the pre-proclamation and proclaim the winning candidates
other cases brought before it for accordingly, if the proceedings were Annexed to Resolution No. 7257 is a list of
adjudication, except those whose suspended by virtue of pending pre- cases6 that shall remain active before the
disposition requires proceedings proclamation cases; COMELEC until their final resolution. SPC
extending beyond 30 June 2001; No. 04-233 is not included in the list.
4. All remaining pre-proclamation
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of its cases, which on the basis of the On 9 July 2004, Santos filed with the
powers under the Constitution, the evidence thus far presented, appear COMELEC En Banc a motion for the
Omnibus Election Code, Batas Pambansa meritorious and/or are subject of reconsideration assailing the COMELEC
Blg. 881, Republic Act Nos. 6646 and orders by the Supreme Court or this First Division’s Resolution.
7166, and other election laws, the Commission in petitions for
Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby certiorari brought respectively to On 30 August 2004, Santos filed before this
RESOLVES: them shall likewise remain active Court a petition for certiorari assailing the 29
cases, thereby requiring the June 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC First
1. All cases which were filed by proceedings therein to continue Division and Resolution No. 7257 of the
private parties without timely beyond 30 June 2004, until they are COMELEC En Banc.
payment of the proper filing fee are finally resolved; and
hereby dismissed; In his Comment on the petition, Asistio
5. All petitions for disqualification, accused Santos of forum shopping. Asistio
2. All cases which were filed beyond failure of elections or analogous informed the Court that the COMELEC En
the reglementary period or not in the cases, not being pre-proclamation Banc only disposed of Santos’ motion for
form prescribed under appropriate controversies and, therefore, not reconsideration in its Order of 15 September
provisions of the Omnibus Election governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 2004 when it affirmed the 29 June 2004
Code, Republic Act Nos. 6646 and 21, and particularly, by the second Resolution of the COMELEC First Division.
7166 are hereby likewise dismissed; paragraph of Sec. 6, Republic Act Hence, at the time of the filing of the petition
No. 7166, shall remain active cases, for certiorari before this Court, Santos’
3. All other pre-proclamation cases the proceedings to continue beyond motion for reconsideration was still pending
which do not fall within the class of June 30, 2004, until the issues before the COMELEC En Banc.
cases specified under paragraphs (1) therein are finally resolved by the
Santos, in his Reply to Asistio’s Comment, Santos is Guilty of Forum-Shopping by the COMELEC En Banc. Had Asistio not
maintains that he is not guilty of forum called this Court’s attention, we would have
shopping because the petition before the Forum shopping is an act of a party, against ruled on whether the COMELEC First
Supreme Court only challenges Resolution whom an adverse judgment or order has been Division committed grave abuse of discretion
No. 7257 and not the 29 June 2004 rendered in one forum, of seeking and in dismissing SPC No. 04-233, which is one
Resolution of the COMELEC First Division. possibly securing a favorable opinion in of the issues raised by Santos in this petition.
Santos further argues that by excluding SPC another forum, other than by appeal or This act of Santos alone constitutes a ground
No. 04-233 from the list of cases annexed to special civil action for certiorari.7 It may also for this Court’s summary dismissal of his
Resolution No. 7257, the COMELEC En be the institution of two or more actions or petition.
Banc effectively terminated the case to its proceedings grounded on the same cause on
finality. Santos claims that he only learned on the supposition that one or the other court The Resolution of the COMELEC First
22 July 2004 of the exclusion of SPC No. 04- would make a favorable disposition.8 Division has attained Finality
233 from the list of cases, after the petition
before this Court had been filed. However, he In this case, Santos filed the petition for Had this Court been apprised at the outset of
admits that Resolution No. 7257 was certiorari before this Court during the the pendency of Santos’ motion for
published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on pendency of his motion for reconsideration reconsideration before the COMELEC En
30 June 2004. with the COMELEC En Banc. The petition Banc, it would have dismissed the petition
clearly states that he is questioning the two outright for premature filing. When the
The Issues Resolutions issued by the COMELEC: the 29 COMELEC En Banc finally resolved the
June 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC First motion for reconsideration, Santos no longer
The issues for resolution of this Court are: Division in SPC No. 04-233 and the elevated the denial of his motion before this
COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 7257.9 It Court. He could no longer do that without
1. Whether Santos is guilty forum was only when Asistio, in his Comment, exposing his act of forum shopping. Thus, by
shopping; called the Court’s attention that Santos now Santos’ inaction, the Order of the COMELEC
belatedly asserts that he only seeks to En Banc is now final and executory.
2. Whether the COMELEC First challenge COMELEC Resolution No. 7257
Division committed grave abuse of and not the Resolution of the COMELEC The Exclusion of SPC No. 04-233 in the List
discretion in dismissing SPC No. 04-233; First Division.10 of Cases

3. Whether the COMELEC En Banc Santos stated in his petition before this Court Annexed To Resolution No. 7257 has become
committed grave abuse of discretion in that on 9 July 2004, he filed a motion for Moot
excluding SPC No. 04-233 from the list reconsideration of the COMELEC First
of cases annexed to Resolution No. 7257. Division’s Resolution. However, he did not Contrary to Santos’ claim, the COMELEC En
disclose that at the time of the filing of his Banc did not dismiss outright SPC No. 04-
The Ruling of This Court petition, his motion for reconsideration was 233 even though the case was excluded in the
still pending before the COMELEC En Banc. list annexed to Resolution No. 7257. The
The petition has no merit. Santos did not also bother to inform the Court COMELEC First Division in fact resolved
of the denial of his motion for reconsideration SPC No. 04-233. When Santos filed a motion
 for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc Mehol K. Sadain, Resurreccion Z. Borra
accepted, considered and disposedMORALES
of the and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. Rollo, pp.
Asscociate Justice
motion. Hence, the issue of whether theJustice
Associate 32-35.
COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse
4
of discretion in excluding SPC No. 04-233 in National Citizen’s Movement for Free
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O. TINGA
the list of cases annexed to Resolution No. Elections, a COMELEC-accredited
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
7257 is now moot since the COMELEC in citizens’ arm for the elections.
fact accepted, considered and disposed of
SPC No. 04-233. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO CANCIO C. GARCIA 5
Rollo, pp. 32-34.
Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. 6
Ibid., pp. 36-66.

SO ORDERED. C E R T I F I CAT I O N 7
Repol v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 161418, 28 April 2004, 428
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the SCRA 321.
Associate Justice Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in 8
Ibid.
WE CONCUR: consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court. 9
Rollo, pp. 14-15.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN 10
Ibid., p. 238.
Chief Justice

NATO S. PUNO LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING

iate Justice Asscociate Justice
Footnotes
SUELO YNARES- ANGELINA SANDOVAL-
1
Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
IAGO GUTIERREZ
Civil Procedure.
iate Justice Asscociate Justice
2
Signed by Presiding Commissioner
ALICIA AUSTRIA- Rufino S.B. Javier and Commissioner
RENATO C. CORONA Resurreccion Z. Borra. Rollo, pp. 118-
TINEZ
Asscociate Justice 124.
iate Justice
3
Signed by COMELEC Chairman
CHITA CARPIO ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., and
Commissioners Rufino S.B. Javier,