LAZATIN VS.

HRET
FACTS: Petitioner Carmelo and private respondent Lorenzo Timbol were among the candidates for Representative of the first
district of Pampanga. Private respondent objected to the inclusion of certain election returns during the canvassing of the votes in
which the Municipal Board of Canvasser did not rule on his objections hence he brought the case to the COMELEC. The COMELEC
ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate. However, later on, the
COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvassing of votes and to proclaim the winner.
Petitioner Lazatin was proclaimed as winner. Private respondent thus filed with the COMELEC petitions to declare petitioners
proclamation as void and to prohibit petitioner from assuming office. The COMELEC failed to act on the second petition and later on
declared petitioner's proclamation as void. Petitioner challenged the COMELECs revocation of petitioner's proclamation in which
the SC ruled in favor of the petitioner. Private respondent filed in the HRET an election protest. Petitioner moved to dismiss private
respondent's protest on the ground that it had been filed late, citing Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881).
However, the HRET filed that the protest had been filed on time in accordance with Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was also denied. Hence, petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the HRET over the protest filed by private
respondent.
Issue: Whether or not the HRET has jurisdiction over the protest.
Held: Yes, HRET has jurisdiction over the protest filed by the private respondent. The SC ruled that Sec. 250 of the OEC must be
applied only to petitions filed before the COMELEC contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa, or any
regional, provincial or city official. Furthermore, Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the 1987 Consitution expressly stated that the Electoral Tribunals
of the Senate and the House of Representatives has the power to solely judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of their respective Members. Therefore, HRET has jurisdiction over the protest.
Addl facts: After the issue on jusrisdiction was resolved, in the Private-Respondent's Counter/Cross Petition, Private respondent in
HRET Case prayed for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin petitioner herein from discharging his
functions and duties as the Representative during. However, the HRET resolved to defer action on said prayer as the grounds
therefor did not appear to be concrete. Private respondent moved for reconsideration which was denied. Thus, private respondent
asks the SC to annul and set aside these two resolutions and to issue a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction.
Issue: Whether or not the SC can annul and set aside the HRET resolutions and issue a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction
Held:
No, the SC cannot annul and set aside the HRET resolutions and issue a Restraining Order/WPI. The power to issue a
restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction and to determine whether there is sufficient ground to issue such during the
pendency of the protest, lies within the HRET. Moreover, considering that the HRET had not yet taken any final action with regard to
his prayer therefore there is actually nothing to review or and set aside. Furthermore, the SC cannot review any final action taken by
HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction unless it can be shown that there is grave abuse of discretion in which in the instant case,
there is none.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED. Private respondent's Counter/Cross Petition is likewise DISMISSED.