Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOMAS T. BANAGA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 210164 2015-08-18	ROMMEL C. ARNADO v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
With regard to the alleged tardiness in the filing of Capitan's Petition in SPA No. 13-309 (DC), it appears that Arnado either failed to grasp the import of Capitan's allegations therein or he made a deliberate partial misrepresentation in stating that the same is one for cancellation of CoC. A copy[30] thereof annexed to Arnado's herein petition states that it is a petition "to disqualify and/or cancel the certificate of candidacy" of Arnado. The allegations therein state in no uncertain terms that it is one for disqualification based on Arnado's failure to comply with the requisites of RA 9225 and on the ruling of this Court in Maquiling. Thus, the Comelec Second Division appropriately treated it as a petition for disqualification with the alternative prayer to cancel Arnado's CoC. It is elementary that the nature of the action is determined by the allegations in the petition.[31]
	GR No. 170365 2010-02-02	ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
In its Resolution, the COMELEC en banc, citing Banaga, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[9] enumerated the three instances when a failure of elections may be declared by the Commission: (1) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes;
	GR NO. 171248 2007-04-02	DR. MAHID M. MUTILAN v. COMELEC PROMULGATED: CARPIO, J.
(c) after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.[14]
	GR NOS. 166143-47 2006-11-20	ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
In these three (3) instances, there must be a resulting failure to elect. As stated in Banaga, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, "this is obvious in the first two scenarios, where the election was not held and where the election was suspended."[70] As to the third scenario, where the preparation and the transmission of the election returns give rise to the consequence of failure to elect must, as mentioned earlier, be interpreted to mean that nobody emerged as a winner.[71]
	GR No. 158610 2004-11-12	ESTEBAN M. ZAMORAS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Zamoras is not only chargeable with the incomplete payment of the appeal fees but he also failed to remit the required filing fees for his motion for reconsideration. The payment of the filing fee is a jurisdictional requirement and non-compliance is a valid basis for the dismissal of the case. The subsequent full payment of the filing fee after the lapse of the reglementary period does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Such procedural lapse by Zamoras clearly warrants the outright dismissal of his appeal.[18] This left the COMELEC with no choice except to declare the Orders final and executory.