MATT ERWIN V. FLORIDO, PETITIONER, VS. JAN RAPHAEL O. PASILLAO, MANOLO DE LEON PANGANIBAN, NORITA C. VICTOR, JAY-AR C. VICTOR, MARK A. PARDIÑAS, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 280515
- Promulgated: 2025-08-12
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Matt Erwin V. Florido (Florido) was a candidate for Representative for the Third District of Quezon Province in the May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections. Jan Raphael O. Pasillao, Manolo De Leon Panganiban, Norita C. Victor, Jay-Ar C. Victor, and Mark A. Pardiñas (Pasillao et al.), registered voters of Buenavista, Quezon, were invited by Florido's representative, Ricky Anyayahan, to an event in Catanauan, Quezon Province on April 5 and 6, 2025. Upon arrival, they signed an attendance sheet, were served meals, and Florido delivered a speech soliciting votes. Subsequently, attendees were called individually to receive a red campaign shirt and a brown envelope containing PHP 1,000.00. Pasillao et al. filed a Petition for Disqualification against Florido, alleging that the provision of transportation, food, drinks, campaign shirts, and cash constituted vote-buying. Florido countered that Pasillao et al. were campaign volunteers attending an internal orientation, and the PHP 1,000.00 was a cash advance for campaign expenses. The COMELEC First Division (COMELEC Division) found Florido committed vote-buying and disqualified him. Florido's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc. Florido then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's resolution. Pasillao et al. contended the petition was filed out of time. ## Issues 1. Whether the Petition for Certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. 2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Florido is guilty of vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1: Whether the Petition for Certiorari was filed within the reglementary period.** The Petition for Certiorari was **dismissed** because it was filed out of time. The Court reiterated that Rule 64, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which governs petitions for certiorari from decisions of constitutional commissions like the COMELEC, imposes a strict 30-day period from notice of the judgment. The filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts this period, but upon denial, the petitioner only has the remaining balance of the original 30-day period, with a minimum of five days, to file the petition for certiorari. The "fresh period rule" under Rule 65 does not apply to Rule 64 petitions, as established in **Pates v. COMELEC** and **Mayor Villanueva v. Commission on Elections**. In this case, Florido received the COMELEC Division's Resolution on April 30, 2025. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 5, 2025, meaning 5 days had elapsed, leaving 25 days. He received the COMELEC En Banc's denial of his motion on May 9, 2025. Counting 25 days from May 9, 2025, the last day to file the petition was June 3, 2025. Florido filed the Petition for Certiorari on June 9, 2025, which was six days beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the resolution of the COMELEC became final and executory. **Issue 2: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Florido is guilty of vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) of the OEC.** The Court found that Florido failed to show that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court defined grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, or an evasion of a positive duty, which is not present when a decision is supported by a legal basis and substantial evidence. The COMELEC Division found substantial evidence that the attendees, including Pasillao et al., were not Florido's official campaign volunteers but were treated as participants. This was supported by findings that they were not part of the volunteers' exclusive group chat, were invited only on the day of the event, and were given leftover meals, indicating they were not an integral part of the campaign team. The COMELEC concluded that the event was intended to secure electoral support, and material…
Keywords
Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 Section 261(a)(1) (Omnibus Election Code), Section 68(a) Omnibus Election Code, Article IX-A Section 7 1987 Constitution, Rule 64 Rules of Court, Rule 65 Rules of Court, Fresh Period Rule (does not apply to Rule 64 petitions), Immutability of final judgments, Election Law, Disqualification of Candidates, Vote-buying, Certiorari, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Substantial Evidence, Final and Executory, Res Judicata, Petition dismissed due to procedural defects, COMELEC ruling affirmed, No grave abuse of discretion, comelec, rule