Pedragoza vs COMELEC

Facts: Pedragoza won the 2002 Punong Barangay Elections. Sumulong filed an election protest claiming that irregularities marred the elections. Sumulong sought recount for ballots Pedragoza filed counter-protest but RTC dismissed both because the objections did not suffice to change election results. Sumulong appealed to the COMELEC, consequently the latter annulled the proclamation of Pedragoza and declare Sumulong as duly elected Punong Brangay. Pedragoza file a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC but denied. All five incumbent COMELEC Commissioners signed the resolution, except Commissioner Sadain and Tuason, without indicating the reasons for their inhibition. Pedragoza claims that the resolution of is invalid having been without a quorum due to the failure of the two commissioners to indicate their reasons for their inhibition.

Issue: W/N the resolution of COMELEC is valid.

Ruling: The resolution is valid. Even if the votes of Commissioners Sadain and Tuason are disregarded (whatever reason) a quorum still remains, with three of the then five COMELEC Commissioners voting to deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. While there is no extant record of the COMELEC’s proceedings in adopting Section 1, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules, the parallel deliberations of the framers of the 1987 Constitution on Section 13, Article VIII shed light on the purpose of the rule requiring a member of this Court and all lower collegiate courts to state his reason for taking no part in a case. Section 13, Article VIII is a devise to dissuade members of this Court and all lower collegiate courts (or in this case, the members of the COMELEC) from not taking part in the deliberation of cases, the requirement has nothing to do with the ruling involved but concerns the judge himself. Thus, noncompliance with the rule does not annul the ruling in which a judge takes no part but may be basis for holding him responsible for the omission.