FACTS:

This case involves a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul the resolution of the COMELEC in COMELEC special relief case SPR No. 10-99. The resolution dismissed the petitioner's petition to set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, which denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss the election protest filed by the private respondent against the petitioner and the motion for reconsideration.

The petitioner and private respondent were both candidates for mayor in the municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed the petitioner as duly elected mayor on May 14, 1998. Subsequently, the private respondent filed a petition for annulment of the proclamation/exclusion of election return with the COMELEC on May 19, 1998. On May 25, 1998, the private respondent filed an election protest against the petitioner with the RTC of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro.

The petitioner filed an answer with counter-protest and moved to dismiss the private respondent's protest on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, and failure to state cause of action. The COMELEC dismissed the pre-proclamation case filed by the private respondent on July 3, 1998.

The trial court denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss on October 1, 1998. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the motion was also denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, which was dismissed by the COMELEC en banc on August 31, 1999. The COMELEC ruled that the private respondent paid the required filing fee and that the defect in the verification was a mere technical defect. The COMELEC also held that there was no forum shopping.

The petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in not ordering the dismissal of the private respondent's election protest. The Supreme Court noted that the question of COMELEC's jurisdiction needed to be resolved before proceeding with the case. It ruled that the COMELEC, sitting en banc, lacks the authority to hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. The authority to resolve petitions for certiorari involving incidental issues of an election protest falls within the division of the COMELEC and not the COMELEC en banc. Thus, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petitioner's petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC's refusal to dismiss the election protest for failure to pay all the requisite filing fees.

2. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC's refusal to dismiss the election protest for insufficiency of the petition and failure to state a cause of action.

3. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC's refusal to dismiss the election protest for forum-shopping and non-compliance with the Supreme Court circular requiring a truthful certification of non-forum shopping.

RULING:

1. The COMELEC acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petitioner's petition in the first instance. Therefore, the petition is meritorious and should be granted.

PRINCIPLES:

• The COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void. (Sarmiento v. COMELEC)