Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO DUMAYAS v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 168411 2007-02-15	BIENVENIDO A. CERBO v. COMELEC CARPIO MORALES, J.
With respect to petitioner Montilla, indeed, he abandoned his petition for correction of manifest errors when he filed an election protest against respondent Datu Pax S. Mangudadatu. Dumayas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections[15] so teaches:As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[16] (Underscoring supplied) While the filing of a protest ex abundante ad cautela[17] is not considered an abandonment of the petition for correction of manifest errors, this Court quotes with approval the following observations of the COMELEC in brushing aside as mere afterthought the claim of Montilla in a manifestation he subsequently filed that his election protest was filed ex abundante ad cautela and that he inadvertently omitted to indicate in its caption that it was one such:
	GR NO. 169865 2006-07-21	VIRGINIO VILLAMOR v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We shall first discuss the second issue. As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.[12] The filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation.[13] The reason is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding. This procedure will prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[14]
	GR NO. 169106 2006-06-23	DATU ISRAEL SINSUAT v. COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
As a rule, the filing of an election protest (1) precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or (2) amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[22]