828. Ambil v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 143398 (October 25, 2000)
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of Governor, Eastern
Samar during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed
petitioner as the duly elected Governor. Private respondent filed an election protest with the
COMELEC, which was assigned to the First Division.
Commissioner X prepared and signed a proposed resolution in the case. Commissioner Y
dissented, while Commissioner Z wanted to see both positions first before giving her
decision. On 2/15/00, Commissioner X retired and was replaced. On 2/24/00, petitioner and
respondent received a purported resolution in favor of private respondent promulgated on
2/14/00 and signed by Commissioners X, Y, and Z. The First Division later declared that the
parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet promulgated. The Division later set a
date for promulgation of a resolution of the case, and said that the aggrieved party could then
challenge it through a Motion for Reconsideration before the Commission en banc or through a
certiorari case before the SC. The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the
promulgation of the resolution and to direct the First Division to deliberate anew on the case.
HELD: The SC dismissed the case for prematurity. It ruled that it has no power to review via
certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on
Elections. The instant case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule in
certiorari cases dispensing with a motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. In
truth, the exceptions do not apply to election cases where a motion for reconsideration is
mandatory by Constitutional fiat to elevate the case to the Comelec en banc, whose final
decision is what is reviewable via certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The SC declared the resolution signed by Commissioner X as void for various reasons. First,
one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the final decision or resolution is
promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or decision. Second, the Clerk of the
1st Division denied the release or promulgation of the resolution on 2/14/00 resolution. Third, the
1st Division even later said that the parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet
promulgated. Lastly, Commissioner Z could not have affixed her signature on the resolution,
since on the same date an order was issued where she said that she still wanted to see both
positions before making her decision.