[G.R. No. 136587. February 22, 2000]

ERNESTO “BIBOT” A. DOMINGO vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 22 2000.

G.R. No. 136587 (Ernesto "Bibot” A. Domingo, Jr., vs. Commission on Elections and Benjamin “Benhur” D. Abalos, Jr.)

This refers to petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration dated September 17, 1999 of the Decision dated August 30, 1999, dismissing the petition for review on certiorari for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, and affirming the proclamation of private respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. as mayor-elect of Mandaluyong City.

On September 6, 1999, counsel for petitioner wrote the Court to request for a copy of the Decision dated August 30, 1999, and of the Resolution dated July 27, 1999 ¹ Requiring counsel for petitioner to file a Reply to the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General filed on May 17, 1999., which apparently he has not received. In the Motion for Reconsideration, he informed the Court that he had personally obtained copies of the above Decision and Resolution on September 6, 1999, and received copies of the same by registered mail on September 10 and 14, 1999, respectively. In the same Motion, he declared that “(t)he filing of said Reply is now moot and academic, hence this Motion for Reconsideration.” ² Motion for Reconsideration; Rollo, 255.

As discussed in the aforecited Decision, petitioner and private respondent were mayoralty candidates of Mandaluyong City in the May 11 1998 elections. After private respondent’s proclamation, petitioner filed a petition for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code before public respondent COMELEC, alleging that during the campaign period, private respondent influenced his father, Benjamin Abalos, Sr., then incumbent mayor of Mandaluyong City, to give “substantial allowances” to public school teachers assigned to the Boards of Election Inspectors (“BEIs”). Public respondent COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification for insufficiency of evidence. This Court upheld the Decision of the COMELEC, and also ruled that it committed no grave abuse of discretion when it decided on the petition for disqualification on the basis of the pleadings and evidence before it, without calling a hearing.

Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the Decision dated August 30, 1999, reiterating the argument he raised in his petition for certiorari that his right to due process was violated when public respondent COMELEC resolved the petition for disqualification without hearing, contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 that disqualification cases, not decided before the election “shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action.”

We cannot see anything in petitioner’s motion for reconsideration that is substantially different from what was already discussed in the petition for certiorari, and considered by this Court when it rendered the Decision dated August 30, 1999. Due process essentially entails an opportunity to be heard; where the opportunity is accorded, either through verbal arguments in open court or pleadings, there is no denial of procedural due process. ³ Bautista vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998; National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. vs. NLRC, 291 SCRA 348; Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 316.Moreover, when the COMELEC en banc entertained petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of the COMELEC First Division, petitioner could not claim to have been deprived of due process where he was given the chance to be heard anew in his motion for reconsideration. ⁴ Salonga vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534.These are well-established principles of due process that were clearly set out in the Decision dated August 30, 1999.

WHEREFORE, it being clear that the matters raised in the motion for reconsideration dated September 17, 1999 are mere reiterations of those raised in the petition for certiorari, and had been passed upon by this Court in the Decision dated August 30, 1999, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. No pronouncement as to costs Buena, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court