Lloren vs. COMELEC Digest

G.R. No. 196355 : September 18, 2012

BIENVENIDO WILLIAM D. LLOREN, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROGELIO PUA, JR.,Respondents.

BERSAMIN, J.:


FACTS:

Petitioner Bienvenido William Lloren (Lloren) and respondent Rogelio Pua, Jr. (Pua) were the candidates for Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Inopacan, Leyte in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Pua as the winning candidate with a plurality of 752 votes for garnering 5,682 votes as against Lloren’s 4,930 votes.

Alleging massive vote-buying, intimidation, defective PCOS machines in all the clustered precincts, election fraud, and other election- related manipulations, Lloren commenced an election protest before the RTC. Lloren, however, failed to indicate in his petition the total number of precincts in the municipality where he ran as vice-mayor. Thus, the RTC dismissed the election protest for insufficiency in form and substance.

Both the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc dismissed Lloren’s appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Lloren’s election protest should prosper?

HELD: Petitioner’s election protest lacks merit.

POLITICAL LAW: election protest


Section 10(c), Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC pertinently provides as follows: Section 10. Contents of the protest or petition.— xxxx c. An election protest shall also state: (ii) the total number of precincts in the municipality.”

As the findings of the RTC show, petitioner did not indicate the total number of precincts in the municipality in his election protest. The omission rendered the election protest insufficient in form and content, and warranted its summary dismissal, in accordance with Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, to wit: “(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as required under Section 10.”

PARTIALLY GRANTED.

Popular Posts