ATIENZA vs.

COMELEC Case Digest

ATIENZA vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 108533, Dec. 20 1994 Fac s! Private respondent Antonio G. Sia was elected mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos, Cebu in the 1 ! local elections. "ollowin# Sia$s proclamation, petitioner filed an election protest with the %e#ional &rial Court 'uestionin# the results of the elections in a number of precincts in the municipality. Conse'uently, in the revision ordered by the lower court, petitioner obtained a plurality of 1( votes over the private respondent. &he %e#ional &rial Court rendered its decision declarin# petitioner the winner of the municipal elections and orderin# the private respondent to reimburse petitioner the amount of P)**,!+,.1 representin# petitioner$s e-penses in the election protest. Private respondent appealed. Meanwhile, the %e#ional trial Court #ranted petitioner$s motion for e-ecution pendin# appeal, which was opposed by respondent. &he Comelec issued a preliminary injunction stoppin# the enforcement of the order of e-ecution. &he Comelec, en banc, on April ., 1 ( issued an /rder settin# aside the preliminary injunction and thereby allowin# petitioner to assume as mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos pendin# resolution of his appeal. 0owever, followin# the synchroni1ed elections of May 11, 1 1 (, the Presidin# Commissioner of the Comelec$s Second 2ivision issued an /rder dated 3uly 1!, ( dismissin# petitioner$s appeal for bein# moot and academic.

Iss"e! 4hether or not the Comelec acted with #rave abuse of discretion in reversin# the lower court$s jud#ment. #e$%! &he dismissal of an appeal in an election protest case for havin# become moot and academic due to the election of new municipal officials referred only to that part of the appealed jud#ment which was affected by the election and not to that portion relatin# to the award of dama#es. 0owever, it would appear virtually impossible for a party in an election protest case to recover actual or compensatory dama#es in the absence of a law e-pressly providin# for situations allowin# for the recovery of the same. &his, petitioner has been unable to do. &he intent of the le#islature to do away with provisions indemnifyin# the victorious party for e-penses incurred in an election contest in the absence of a wron#ful act or omission clearly attributable to the losin# party cannot be #ainsaid 5 in fine, Section (+ of the /mnibus 6lection Code merely provides for the #rantin# of actual and compensatory dama#es 7in accordance with law.8 &he intent, moreover, to do away with such provisions merely reco#ni1es the ma-im, settled in law that a wron# without dama#e or dama#e without wron# neither constitutes a cause of action nor creates a civil obli#ation.

/smena v. Comelec 9March )1, 1

!:

Fac s! ;6milio /smena and other petitioners are candidates in the <ational 6lections. ;%.A. <o. ,,=,, the 6lectoral %eforms >aw of 1 !., prohibits mass media from sellin# or #ivin# free of char#e print space or air time for campai#n or other political purposes, e-cept to the Commission on 6lections. ;&hey contend that events after the rulin# in National Press Club v. Commission on Elections 7have called into 'uestion the validity of the very premises of that decision. ;NPC v. COMELEC upheld the validity of %.A. <o. ,,=, a#ainst claims that it abrid#ed freedom of speech and of the press. ?n ur#in# a ree-amination of that rulin#, petitioners claim that e-perience in the last five years since the decision in that case has shown the 7undesirable effects8 of the law because 7the ban on political advertisin# has not only failed to level the playin# field, but actually wor@ed to the #rave disadvanta#e of the poor candidateAsB8 by deprivin# them of a medium which they can afford to pay for while their more affluent rivals can always resort to other means of reachin# voters li@e airplanes, boats, rallies, parades, and handbills. ;0owever, no empirical data were presented by the petitioners to bac@ up their claim. &hey instead they ma@e ar#uments from which it is clear that their disa#reement is with the opinion of the Court on the constitutionality of %.A. <o. ,,=, and that what they see@ is a rear#ument on the same issue already decided in that case. Iss"e! 4/< upholdin# the validity of %A ,,=, actually wor@ed in favor of richer candidates #e$%! Petition 2?SM?SS62 Ra &o! ?t is incorrect to claim that the purpose of %A ,,=, is e'uality of the candidates when what its provisions really spea@ of is e'uality in opportunity. &he main purpose of the %A is re#ulatory. Any restriction on speech is only incidental, and it is no more than is necessary to achieve its purpose of promotin# e'uality of opportunity in the use of mass media for political advertisin#. &he restriction on speech, as pointed out in NPC, is limited both as to time and as to scope. Assumin# that rich candidates can spend for parades, rallies, motorcades, airplanes and the li@e in order to campai#n while poor candidates can only afford political ads, the #ap between the two will not necessarily be reduced by allowin# unlimited mass media advertisin# because rich candidates can spend for other propa#anda in addition to mass media advertisin#. Moreover, it is not true that C119b: has abolished the playin# field. 4hat it has done, as already stated, is merely to re#ulate its use throu#h C/M6>6C; sponsored advertisin# in place of advertisements paid for by candidates or donated by their supporters.