7/27/2019 ATIENZA vs Comelec Case Digest

1/1

ATIENZA vs. COMELEC Case DigestATIENZA vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 108533, Dec. 20 1994Facts:Private respondent Antonio G. Sia was electedmayor of the Municipalityof Madrilejos, Cebuin the 1998 localelections. FollowingSias proclamation, petitionerfiledan electionprotestwith the RegionalTrialCourt questioningthe results ofthe elections ina number of precincts in the municipality. Consequently, inthe revisionorderedby the lower court, petitioner obtaineda plurality of 12 votesover the private respondent.The RegionalTrial Court renderedits decisiondeclaringpetitioner the winner of themunicipalelections andorderingthe private respondent to reimburse petitioner the amount of P300,856.19 representingpetitioners expenses in the elec tionprotest.Private respondent appealed.

Meanwhile, the Regionaltrial Court grantedpetitioners motionfor executionpending appeal, whichwas opposedby respondent . The Comelec issueda preliminary injunctionstopping the enforcement of the order of execution. The Comelec, enbanc, on April7, 1992 issuedan Order settingaside the preliminary injunctionand thereby allowingpetitioner to assume as mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos pendingresolutionof his appeal. However, followingthe synchronizedelections of May 11, 1992, the PresidingCommissioner of the ComelecsSecondDivisionissued anOrder datedJuly 18, 1992dismissingpetitioners appealforbeing moot andacademic.

Issue:Whether or not the Comelec actedwith grave abuse of discretionin reversingthe lower courts judgment.

Held: The dismissalof anappealin anelection protest case for havingbecome moot andacademic due to the electionof new municipalofficials referredonly to that part of the appealedjudgment whichwas affected by the electionandnot to t hat portionrelatingto the award of damages. However, it wouldappear virtually impossible for a party inan electionprotest case to recover actualor compensatory damages intheabsence of a law expressly providingfor situations allowingfor the recovery of the same. This, petitioner has been unable to do. The intent of the legislature to do away withprovisions indemnifyingthe victorious party for expenses incurredinan electioncontest in the absence of a wrongfulact or omissionclearly attributable to the losingparty cannot be gainsaid infine, Section 259 of the Omnibus ElectionCode merelyprovides for the grantingof actualand compensatory damages inaccordance withlaw. The intent, moreover, to do away withsuchprovisions merely recognizes the maxim, settledi nlaw that awrong without damage or damage without wrongneither constitutes a causeof actionnor creates a civilobligation.