G.R. No.

193261

April 24, 2012

MEYNARDO SABILI, Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENCIO
LIBREA, Respondents.

ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC committed grave

abuse of discretion in holding that Sabili failed to
prove compliance with the one-year residency
requirement for local elective officials.

FACTS: COMELEC denied Sabilis Certificate of

Candidacy (COC) for mayor of Lipa due to failure to
comply with the one year residency requirement.
When petitioner filed his COC for mayor of Lipa City
for the 2010 elections, he stated therein that he had
been a resident of the city for two (2) years and eight
(8) months.

RULING: As a general rule, the Court does not

ordinarily review the COMELECs appreciation and
evaluation of evidence. However, exceptions thereto
have been established, including when the
COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of
evidence become so grossly unreasonable as to turn
into an error of jurisdiction. In these instances, the
Court is compelled by its bounden constitutional duty
to intervene and correct the COMELEC's error.

However, it is undisputed that when petitioner filed

his COC during the 2007 elections, he and his family
were then staying at his ancestral home in Barangay
(Brgy.) Sico, San Juan, Batangas. Respondent
Florencio Librea (private respondent) filed a "Petition
to Deny Due Course and to Cancel Certificate of
Candidacy and to Disqualify a Candidate for
Possessing Some Grounds for Disqualification.
Allegedly, petitioner falsely declared under oath in
his COC that he had already been a resident of Lipa
City for two years and eight months prior to the
scheduled 10 May 2010 local elections.
In its Resolution dated 26 January 2010,41 the
COMELEC Second Division granted the Petition of
private respondent, declared petitioner as
disqualified from seeking the mayoralty post in Lipa
City, and canceled his Certificate of Candidacy for
his not being a resident of Lipa City and for his
failure to meet the statutory one-year residency
requirement under the law.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the 26
January 2010 Resolution of the COMELEC, during
the pendency of which the 10 May 2010 local
elections were held. The next day, he was
proclaimed the duly elected mayor of Lipa City after
garnering the highest number of votes cast for the
said position. He accordingly filed a
Manifestation42with the COMELEC en banc to
reflect this fact.
In its Resolution dated 17 August 2010,43 the
COMELEC en banc denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of petitioner. Hence, petitioner filed
with this Court a Petition (Petition for Certiorari with
Extremely Urgent Application for the Issuance of a
Status Quo Order and for the Conduct of a Special
Raffle of this Case) under Rule 64 in relation to Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, seeking the annulment of
the 26 January 2010 and 17 August 2010
Resolutions of the COMELEC.

As a concept, "grave abuse of discretion" defies

exact definition; generally, it refers to "capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction;" the abuse of discretion must be
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be
grave. We have held, too, that the use of wrong or
irrelevant considerations in deciding an issue is
sufficient to taint a decision-maker's action with
grave abuse of discretion.
Closely related with the limited focus of the present
petition is the condition, under Section 5, Rule 64 of
the Rules of Court, that findings of fact of the
COMELEC, supported by substantial evidence, shall
be final and non-reviewable.
In light of our limited authority to review findings of
fact, we do not ordinarily review in a certiorari case
the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of
evidence. Any misstep by the COMELEC in this
regard generally involves an error of judgment, not
of jurisdiction.
In exceptional cases, however, when the
COMELEC's action on the appreciation and
evaluation of evidence oversteps the limits of its
discretion to the point of being grossly unreasonable,
the Court is not only obliged, but has the
constitutional duty to intervene. When grave abuse
of discretion is present, resulting errors arising from
the grave abuse mutate from error of judgment to
one of jurisdiction.
Before us, petitioner has alleged and shown the
COMELECs use of wrong or irrelevant
considerations in deciding the issue of whether
petitioner made a material misrepresentation of his
residency qualification in his COC as to order its
cancellation.

Hence, in resolving the issue of whether the

COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in ruling
that petitioner had not sufficiently shown that he had
resided in Lipa City for at least one year prior to the
May 2010 elections, we examine the evidence
adduced by the parties and the COMELECs
appreciation thereof.
Basically, the allegations of the Petitioner Sabili are
tantamount to allege that the COMELEC, in denying

his COC committed grave abuse of discretion. The

court here defined what grave abuse of discretion is;
and by that chose and ruled to review the acts of
COMELEC under its jurisdiction.
Eventually he was able to prove that he was a
resident of Lipa and the SC granted his petition.