Cases Election New

8/9/2019 Cases Election New

1/61

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 106560. August 23, 1996]

FLOREZIL AGUJETAS !" SAL#A$OR %IJIS, petitioners, vs. &OURTOF A''EALS !" T(E 'EO'LE OF T(E'(ILI''INES, respondents.

TORRES, JR., J .)

Petitioners Florezil Agujetas and Salvador Bijis, former Chairman and Vice-Chairman, resectivel! of the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of "avao#riental assail the decision of the u$lic resondent Court of Aeals %hich affirmed thedecision of the &egional 'rial Court of (ati, "avao #riental finding them guilt! ascharged for failure to roclaim a %inning elected candidate) 'he disositive ortion of the Court of Aeals decision *+ in CA-)&) C& No) ./01/ reads2

"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with a modification in

that the actual damages of !,# are here$% reduced to &,# and the

moral damages ',# awarded to Erlinda Irigo are deleted# (osts de officio.

")O ORDERED#"

'he antecedents2

3n the fateful evening of 4anuar! 5+, +/11, the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of "avao #riental, comosed of +)6 the Provincial Election Suervisor Florezil Agujetas, as Chairman, 5)6 Provincial Prosecutor Salvador Bijis, as ViceChairman, and 7)6 "ivision Suerintendent of Pu$lic Schools in said rovince, Benjamin(iano,*5 as mem$er, roclaimed the %inners for overnor, Vice-overnor, andProvincial Board (em$ers for "avao #riental in the 4anuar! +1, +/11 election) 'hecandidates roclaimed %ere2

RO(*AIMED (A+DIDAE)

+ame +o# of -otes

For .o/ernor0

*eopoldo *ope1 !2,32 /otes

Francisco Ra$at !','2' /otes

For -ice4.o/ernor0

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn1


2/61

Modesto A/ellanosa &5,3!3 /otes

6osefina )i$ala !&,73 /otes

For ro/incial 8oard Mem$ers

'# (irilo R# -alles &9,32& /otes

9# Ma# Elena alma .il &',!!: /otes3# Antonio Alcantara 32,'& /otes

Dr# (apistrano Roflo 3:,3' /otes

!# Orlando Rodrigue1 3&,2'& /otes

5# Alfredo A$a%on 3&,'2' /otes

:# 6ustina ;u 39,35 /otes

7# edro ena 3,5:2 /otes

'he eighth $oard mem$er roclaimed, Pedro Pena, garnered 7.,08/ votes %henanother candidate for the Board, Erlinda 3rigo, got 7+,+5/ or 9:. more votes than Pena)

Before the roclamation %as made, %hen the certificate of canvass androclamation statements of %inning candidates %ere finished, a ver$al rotest %aslodged $! (rs) (ari$eth 3rigo Batitang, daughter of candidate 3rigo and her designatedreresentative during the canvassing roceedings, addressed to the 'a$ulationCommittee)

At 12.. o;cloc< in the morning of 4anuar! 55, +/11, the Board resumed its sessionand undertoo< the follo%ing activities2

"'# Opening of 8allot 8o< +o# (A43'!25 and sealed $% Metal )eal +o# 9&:5: at

e


3/61

information in Criminal Case No) +110 for Violation of 5nd Paragrah of Section 57+ in&elation to Section 505 of the #mni$us Election Code read2

"hat on or a$out 6anuar% 9', '277, in the Municipalit% of Mati, ro/ince of Da/ao

Oriental, hilippines, and within the ?urisdiction of this Honora$le (ourt, the a$o/e4

named accused as (hairman, -ice4(hairman and hird Mem$er, respecti/el%, of thero/incial 8oard of (an/assers of Da/ao Oriental in the 6anuar% '7, '277 elections,

conspiring with, confederating together and mutuall% helping one another, did, then

and there, willfull% and unlawfull% fail to proclaim Erlinda Irigo as elected

)angguniang anlalawigan Mem$er candidate who o$tained 3','92 /otes, the eighth

highest num$er of /otes cast in said pro/ince $ut instead proclaimed candidate edro

ena who o$tained onl% 3,522 /otes#"

"(O+RAR; O *AW"@&

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a decision, the disositive ortion of %hich reads2

"WHEREFORE, in /iew of all the foregoing considerations, (riminal (ases +os#

'77! and '77: are here$% DI)MI))ED, with costs de oficio, and the accused

considered acBuitted# heir $ail $onds are ordered canceled and released#

"In (riminal (ase +o# '775, the (ourt finds the accused Flore1il Agu?etas, )al/ador

8i?is and 8en?amin Miano .CI*; $e%ond reasona$le dou$t as principals for

/iolation of )ection 93', second paragraph, of 8atas am$ansa 8lg# 77', as amended,

otherwise nown as the "Omni$us Election (ode of the hilippines", and here$%sentences each of them to O+E ='> ;EAR IMRI)O+ME+ which shall not $e

su$?ect to pro$ation# In addition, the% are sentenced to suffer disBualification to hold

pu$lic office and depri/ation of the right of suffrage# )aid accused are ordered to pa%,

?ointl% and se/erall%, Erlinda Irigo the amounts of !,# as actual damages,

'!,# as and for attorne%s fees, and ',# as moral damages, plus the

costs of the proceedings#

"*et copies hereof $e furnished the Honora$le (hairman, (ommission on Elections,

and the Honora$le )ecretaries of 6ustice and Education, (ulture and )ports#

")O ORDERED#" =pp# &34&&, Decision>

'he three accused aealed to the Court of Aeals %hich rendered the decisionassailed in this etition)

Petitioners imute to the resondent court the follo%ing errors2

I

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn4


4/61

'he Court of Aeals erred in affirming the decision of conviction $ecause2

a) 3t is the failure to ma


5/61

$% a statement of the /otes and recei/ed $% each candidate in each polling place and,

on the $asis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who o$tained the highest

num$er of /otes cast in the pro/ince, cit%, municipalit% or $aranga%# Failure to

compl% with this reBuirement shall constitute an election offense#"

'o go $! the e>lanation as roosed $! the etitioner %ould $e tantamount totolerating and licensing $oards of canvassers to ?maculated $! just utting u the ine>cusa$le defense that the ?foul-u resultedfrom the erroneous arrangement of the names of candidates? *: in one municialit! or that ?the $asis of their roclamation %as the erroneous ran


6/61

highest num$er of /otes cast in the pro/ince per municipalit% $% precinct which

/iolated the legal reBuirement of the 9nd paragraph of )ection 93' of 8 +o# 77' as

amended#

"he respondents were not a$le to e the $asis for the proclamation of ena when he was not among the eightcandidates who o$tained the highest num$er of /otes as e/idenced $% the statements

of /otes# In fact the% admitted that the $asis was not the statement of /otes $ut the

erroneous raning $% the a$ulators# < <


7/61

e find the a$ove contentions untena$le) As atl! stated $! "irector Borra in hisaforementioned resolution2

"he timel% /er$al protest of the daughter4watcher of Mrs# Erlinda Irigo did not

trigger on the part of the 8( =ro/incial 8oard of (an/assers> the responsi$le action

of /erif%ing the $asis of the protest# he 3 Mem$ers of the 8( could not attri$ute tothe (ommittee on a$ulation the $lame for their errors as the 8( mem$ers

themsel/es were the ones who certified under oath the said (ertificate of

roclamation and the a$ulation (ommittee mem$ers were totall% under their direct

super/ision and control#"

Petitioners also raised the issue that it %as onl! after the roclamation had $eenmade that the Board %as informed of the fact that an error ma! have $een committed in

the ta$ulationD and that ho%ever, having discharged its function of ma


8/61

roclamation in uestion had $een made even $efore the votes %ere reconciled on thetall! sheets) And as to accused (iano, Secretar! of the Board, he admitted havingstated in the minutes*+5 that an oral comlaint %as made $! (rs) Batitang, reresentativeof Erlinda 3rigo, $ut that the comlaint %as lodged %ith the ta$ulation committee and not%ith the BoardD and that he did not care to e>amine the artial results for each rovincial

candidate, including Erlinda 3rigo and Pedro Pena)*+7

An admission, ver$al or %ritten, made $! a art! in the course of the roceedings inthe same case, does not reuire roof) *+9

#n the last error assigned $! etitioners, the! maintain that the resent case %asfiled $! Francisco &a$at, the losing gu$ernatorial candidate in the Province of "avao#rientalD that (rs) 3rigo never joined the Comlaint as a art!-laintiff at an! stage of the roceedingsD that she %as merel! resented as a %itnessD and thus, for the court tohave a%arded damages to (rs) 3rigo %as a atent error) e find etitioners; allegationsuntena$le) E>cet %here the la% secificall! rovides the contrar!, a comlaint that au$lic crime has $een committed ma! $e laid $! an! cometent erson) *+: 'he #mni$us

Election Code does not secificall! rovide that a articular erson must file thecomlaint and hence, the comlaint filed $! Francisco &a$at is valid)

'he counsel for the eole oints out and %e agree-

"E/en an offended part% not mentioned in the Information ma% claim the ci/il lia$ilit%

during the trial if he has not wai/ed it#@'5

"In the case at $ar, Erlinda Irigo clearl%, was the part% offended or the person whose

rights were trampled upon, $% the indecent haste with which petitioners proclaimed

eodoro ena = sic> as the winner of the 7th seat of the )angguniang anlalawigan#

"he persistence of Erlinda Irigos law%ers to participate, as in fact the% participated,

in the proceedings a quo as pri/ate prosecutors o/er the /ehement o$?ections of

petitioners counsel clearl% indicates that Erlinda Irigo intended to claim damages

from petitioners#"@':

3n I)S) v) Jeer!,*+1 this court held that ?3f the injured art! has not e>ressl! %aivedthe civil lia$ilit! of the accused nor reserved his right to file a searate civil action, it iserror for the court to refuse a reuest of the injured art! during the course of thecriminal rosecution to su$mit evidence of his damages)H 'hus, the arguments of theetitioners not%ithstanding, resondent court did not err in a%arding damages to (rs)

3rigo)

After the Peole;s counsel has filed resondents; comment, etitioners filed their &el! %herein the! raised for the first time =not even in their Petition6, the issue that thecrime under %hich etitioners %ere convicted no longer e>ists $ecause &eu$lic ActNos) 0090 =the Electoral &eforms @a% of +/186 and 8+00 =Electoral &eforms @a% of +//+6 %ere su$seuentl! aroved on 4anuar! :, +/11 and Novem$er 50, +//+,resectivel!D that these t%o la%s amended the #mni$us Election Code $! deleting

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn18


9/61

certain rovisions thereof or adding ne% onesD and that among those amended %asSection 57+, %hich %as modified $! Section 51 of &A No) 8+00 $! removing the secificmanner $! %hich the roclamation of %inning candidates $! the Board of Canvassersshould $e made and there$!, in effect, reealing the second aragrah of Sec) 57+ of the old #mni$us Election Code under %hich Petitioners had $een convicted)

Points of la%, theories, issues and arguments not adeuatel! $rought to theattention of the trial court need not $e, and ordinaril! %ill not $e considered $! arevie%ing court as the! cannot $e raised for the first time on aeal) *+/ Jo%ever, since&A 8+00 %as enacted after the trial court had rendered its decision, and %hile the case%as alread! ending aeal in the Court of Aeals, and in order to settle the issueonce and for all, this court %ill maressl! reealed $! &)A) 8+00 $ecause said Sec) 57+ is not among the rovisionsreealed $! Sec) 7/ of &)A) 8+00 %hich %e uote2

")ec# 32# Amending and Repealing (lause# 4 )ections ':, '7 and 9&! of theOmni$us Election (ode are here$% repealed# *iewise, the inclusion in )ection 959 of

the Omni$us Election (ode of the /iolations of )ections '!, '5, ':, '7, '2, '',

''' and ''9 as among election offenses is also here$% repealed# his repeal shall

ha/e retroacti/e effect#

"8atas am$ansa 8lg# 77', Repu$lic Act +o# 55&5, E


10/61

returns from other polling places within its ?urisdiction# Each time the $oard

ad?ourns, it shall mae a total of all the /otes can/assed so far for each candidate for

each office, furnishing the (ommission in Manila $% the fastest means of

communication a certified cop% thereof, and maing a/aila$le the data contained

therein to the mass media and other interested parties# As soon as the other election

returns are deli/ered, the $oard shall immediatel% resume can/assing until all thereturns ha/e $een can/assed#

"The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed

and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported

by a statement of the votes and received by each candidate in each polling place and,

on the basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the

highest number of votes cast in the province, city municipality or barangay. Failure

to comply with this requirement shall constitute an election offense.

")u$?ect to reasona$le e he cit% $oard of can/assers of cities comprising one or more legislati/e districts

shall can/ass the election returns for resident, -ice4resident, )enators, Mem$ers of

the House of Representati/es and electi/e cit% officials# Cpon completion of the

can/ass, the $oard shall prepare the certificate of can/ass for resident, -ice4

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn22


11/61

resident, and )enators and thereafter, proclaim the elected Mem$ers of House of

Representati/es and cit% officials#

"=c> ='> In the Metro Manila Area, each municipalit% comprising a legislati/e district

shall ha/e a district $oard of can/assers which shall can/ass the election returns for

resident, -ice4resident, )enators, Mem$ers of the House of representati/es andelecti/e municipal officials# Cpon completion of the can/ass, it shall prepare the

certificate of can/ass for resident, -ice4resident, and )enators and thereafter,

proclaim the elected Mem$ers of the House of Representati/es and municipal

officials#

"=9> Each component municipalit% in a legislati/e district in the Metro Manila Area

shall ha/e a municipal hoard of can/assers which shall can/ass the election returns for

resident, -ice4resident, )enators, he provincial board of canvassers shall can/ass the certificates of can/ass for

resident, -ice4resident, )enators, Mem$ers of the House of Representati/es and

electi/e pro/incial officials as well as ple$iscite results, if an% ple$iscite is conducted

simultaneousl% with the same election, as su$mitted $% the $oard of can/assers of

municipalities and component cities# Cpon completion of the can/ass, it shall prepare

the certificate of can/ass for resident, -ice4resident and )enators and thereafter,

proclaim the elected Mem$ers of the House of Representati/es and pro/incial officialsas well as the ple$iscite results, if an%#"@93

hile the t%o rovisions differ in terms, neither is this fact sufficient to createreugnance) 3n order to effect a reeal $! imlication, the later statute must $e soirreconcila$l! inconsistent and reugnant %ith the e>isting la% that the! cannot $e madeto reconcile and stand together) 'he clearest case ossi$le must $e made $efore theinference of imlied reeal ma! $e dra%n, for inconsistenc! is never resumed) *59 ?3t isnecessar!, sa!s the court in a case, *5: $efore such reeal is deemed to e>ist that it $esho%n that the statutes or statutor! rovisions deal %ith the same su$ject matter andthat the latter $e inconsistent %ith the former) 'here must $e a sho%ing of reugnanceclear and convincing in character) 'he language used in the later statute must $e suchas to render it irreconcila$le %ith %hat had $een formerl! enacted) An inconsistenc!that falls short of that standard does not suffice)? *50 For it is a %ell-settled rule of statutor!construction that reeals of statutes $! imlication are not favored) *58 'he resumtion isagainst inconsistenc! or reugnance and, accordingl!, against imlied reeal) *51 For thelegislature is resumed to isting la%s on the su$ject and not to haveenacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes) *5/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn29


12/61

3n the case at $ar, the needed manifest indication of legislative urose to reeal isnot resent) Neither is there an! inconsistenc! $et%een the t%o su$jectrovisions) 'he e>lanation of a legal scholar *7. on the su$ject, articularl! on Section +of BP 11+ is enlightening2

"he Omni$us Election (ode of the hilippines is 8atas am$ansa 8lg# 77', whichwas enacted into law on Decem$er 3, '27!# It codified all pre/ious election laws# It

has undergone some amendments, $asicall% $% the '27: (onstitution, Repu$lic Act

+o# 55&5, otherwise nown as "he Electoral Reform *aw of '27:," and Repu$lic

Act +o# :'55, pro/iding for s%nchroni1ed national and local elections on Ma% '',

'229#

"he Omni$us Election (ode is the $asic law on elections# While legislations ha/e

$een enacted e/er% time an election for electi/e officials is scheduled, the Omni$us

Election (ode remains the fundamental law on the su$?ect and such pieces of

legislations are designed to impro/e the law and to achie/e the holding of free,orderl%, honest, peaceful and credi$le elections#"

Consistentl!, %hile Article 55 of the &evised Penal Code rovides that enal la%sshall have retroactive effect insofar as the! favor the erson guilt! of a felon! >>>, thisrovision cannot $e alied to $enefit the etitioners $ecause Section 57+ of BP11+*7+ %as not reealed $! su$seuent legislations, contrar! to etitioners contentionthat Section 57+ %as so reealed $! &)A) Nos) 0090 and 8+00)

A&&OR$INGL*, the etition is "EN3E" for lac< of merit and the assailed decisionof the resondent Court of Aeals is here$! AFF3&(E" in toto)

SO OR$ERE$.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 150605. $++-+/ 10, 2002]

EUFRO&INO . &O$ILLA, SR., petitioner , vs. (ON. JOSE $E#ENE&IA, RO%ERTO '. NAZARENO, ! t+/ o4 t+ss S++/ !" S+/+t/78G+!+/4 o t+ (ous+ o R+/+s+!tt+s, /+s+t+47, !" A. #I&TORIA L.LO&SIN, respondents.

$ E & I S I O N

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/aug1996/106560.htm#_edn31


13/61

'UNO, J.)

3n a democrac!, the first self-evident rincile is that he %ho has $een rejected $!the eole cannot reresent the eole) &esondent (a) Victoria @) @ocsin lost toetitioner Eufrocino () Codilla, Sr) $! +8,/.7 votes in the (a! +9, 5..+ elections as

&eresentative of the 9

th

legislative district of @e!te) 'he most sohisticated legalalchem! cannot justif! her insistence that she should continue governing the eole of @e!te against their %ill) 'he enforcement of the sovereign %ill of the eole is notsu$ject to the discretion of an! official of the land)

'his is a Petition for (andamus and Kuo arranto directed against resondentsSeatract, haul and distri$ute gravel and sand to the residents of Lananga and (atag-o$, @e!te, for the urose of inducing, influencing or corruting them to vote for him)

Attached to the etition are the =a6 Affidavits of Basilio Bates,[2] "anilo ") (aglasang,[3] Cesar A) @aurenteD[:] =$6 4oint Affidavit of Agriino C) Alferez and &ogelio ') SalveraD[5] =c6 E>tract &ecords from the Police Blotter e>ecuted $! Police Suerintendent Elson) PechoD[6] and =d6 Photograhs sho%ing government dum truc


14/61

#n (a! +0, 5..+, $efore the counting could $e finished, resondent @ocsin joinedas intervenor in SPA No) +51 and filed a >ost U/g+!t oto! to Sus+!"'/o4-to! o R+so!"+!t *herein etitionerH %ith the C#(E@EC Second "ivision)[10] &esondent @ocsin alleged that the evidence on record against resondent is ver!strong and unless re$utted remains)H She urged the Commission to set the hearing of

the disualification case and ra!ed for the susension of the roclamation of theresondent so as not to render the resent disualification case moot andacademic)H A o7 o t+ oto! ?s 44+g+"47 s+/+" o! +tto!+/ 7 /+gst+/+"-4 ut !o /+gst/7 /++t ?s tt+" t+/+to)[11]

#n (a! +1, 5..+, resondent @ocsin filed a S+o!" ost U/g+!t oto! toSus+!" '/o4-to! o R+so!"+!tH stating there is clear and convincingevidence sho%ing that the resondent is undou$tedl! guilt! of the charges against himand this remains unre$utted $! the resondent)H A co! of the (otion %as sent to theetitioner and the corresonding registr! receit %as attached to the leading) [12] 'herecords, ho%ever, do not sho% the date the etitioner received the motion)

O! t+ s-+ "7, (a! +1, 5..+, the C#(E@EC Second "ivision issued an Ex- Parte Order [13] directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers of @e!te to susend theroclamation of etitioner in case he o$tains the highest num$er of votes $! reason of the seriousness of the allegations in the etition for disualification)H [1:] 3t also directedthe &egional Election "irector to seed u the recetion of evidence and to for%ardimmediatel! the comlete records together %ith its recommendation to the #ffice of theCler< of the Commission)[15] As a result, etitioner %as not roclaimed as %inner eventhough the final election results sho%ed that he garnered 8+,7:. votes as againstresondent @ocsinMs :7,998 votes)[16]

At the time that the C#(E@EC Second "ivision issued its #rder susending hisroclamation, the etitioner has !et to $e summoned to ans%er the etition for

disualification) Neither has said etition $een set for hearing) 3t %as onl! on (a! 59,5..+ that etitioner %as a$le to file an Ans%er to the etition for his disualification %iththe &egional Election "irector, alleging that2 =a6 he has not received the summonstogether %ith the co! of the etitionD =$6 he $ecame a%are of the matter onl! $! virtueof the telegram sent $! the C#(E@EC Second "ivision informing him that a etition%as filed against him and that the &egional Election "irector %as directed to investigateand receive evidence there%ithD and =c6 he o$tained a co! of the etition from theC#(E@EC &egional #ffice No) 1 at his o%n instance) [1;] Petitioner further alleged thatthe maintenance, reair and reha$ilitation of $aranga! roads in the municialities of (atag-o$ and Lananga %ere underta B)

BorinagaD[1cert from the (inutes of the &egular Session of Baranga! (ontericoD[19] =c6 Affidavit of ilfredo A) FielD [20] =d6 Sulemental Affidavit of ilfredo A) FielD[21] and =e6 Affidavit of Arnel ) Pada!ao)[22]

#n (a! 5:, 5..+, etitioner filed a oto! to Lt O/"+/ o Sus+!so!,[23] allegingthat =a6 he did not receive a co! of the (otion to Susend his Proclamation and hence,%as denied the right to re$ut and refute the allegations in the (otionD =$6 that he did notreceive a co! of the summons on the etition for disualification and after ersonall!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn23


15/61

o$taining a co! of the etition, filed the reuisite ans%er onl! on (a! 59, 5..+D and =c6that he received the telegrah #rder of the C#(E@EC Second "ivision susending hisroclamation onl! on (a! 55, 5..+) Je attached documentar! evidence in suort of his (otion to @ift the Susension of his roclamation, and reuested the setting of ahearing on his (otion)[2:]

#n (a! 7., 5..+, an oral argument %as conducted on the etitionerMs (otion andthe arties %ere ordered to su$mit their resective memoranda) [25] #n 4une 9, 5..+,etitioner su$mitted his (emorandum[26] in suort of his (otion assailing thesusension of his roclamation on the grounds that2 =a6 he %as not afforded duerocessD =$6 the order has no legal and factual $asisD and =c6 evidence of his guilt isatentl! ine>istent for the urose of susending his roclamation) Je ra!ed that hisroclamation as %inning congressional candidate $e e>edientl! made, even %hile thedisualification case against him continue uon due notice and hearing) Je attached thefollo%ing additional evidence in his (emorandum2 =a6 Co! of certification issued $!PNP Senior 3nsector Benjamin ') orreD [2;] =$6 Certification issued $! Elena S) Aviles,Cit! Budget #fficerD[2


16/61

therein the immediate roclamation of the second highest Ovote getter)M &esondent@ocsin and her co-etitioner in SPA No) .+-5.1 filed a joint #osition to the (otion for &econsideration) [:0]

#n 4une 5+, 5..+, etitioner filed %ith the C#(E@EC en banc a '+tto! o/ $+4/to! o Nu44t7 o '/o4-to!,[:1] doc)H [:9]

#n August 5/, 5..+, then C#(E@EC Chairman Alfredo @) Benia!o issued a Voteand #inion and Summar! of VotesH /++/s!g t+ /+so4uto! o t+ S+o!" $so!!" "+4/!g t+ /o4-to! o /+so!"+!t Los! s !u44 !" o") 'hedisositive ortion reads2

4I"(EN'

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn49


17/61

JE&EF#&E, in vie% of all the foregoing considerations, 3 concur %ith Commissioner&esurreccion G) Borra, Commissioner Florentino A) 'uason, 4r) and Commissioner&alh C) @antion, in SPA No) .+-5.1, to &AN' the motion for reconsideration and to&EVE&SE the resolution of the Commission =Second Division6 romulgated on 4une +,5..+, disualif!ing CodillaD and su$seuentl!, in SPC No) .+-759, to &AN' the

etition of Eufrocino () Codilla, Sr), and declare as null and void the roclamation oflosing candidate @ocsin) Accordingl!2+) #n the (otion for &econsideration of the disualification resolution againstCodilla, romulgated $! the Commission =Second Division6 on 4une +9, 5..+ =SPA No).+-5.16, 3 vote2

=a6 to &AN' the (otion for &econsideration of resondent-movantEufrocino () Codilla, Sr), and to &EVE&SE the &esolution of theCommission =Second Division6 romulgated on 4une +9, 5..+, for insufficienc! of evidenceD

=$6 to lift the order of susension of roclamation of etitioner Codilla, issued

$! the Commission =Second Division6 on (a! +1, 5..+, having $eenissued %ithout hearing and %ithout an! finding that the evidence of guiltof etitioner Codilla is strong and, thus, null and voidD

=c6 to nullif! the order contained in the &esolution of the Commission=Second "ivision6 romulgated on 4une +9, 5..+, for =t6he immediateroclamation of the candidate %ho garnered the highest num$er of votes,to the e>clusion of resondentH and the concurrent order for theProvincial Board of Canvasser =sic6 of @e!te to immediatel! reconveneand thereafter roclaim forth%ith the candidate %ho o$tained the highestnum$er of votes counting out the &esondentH the same $eing violativeof election la%s, esta$lished jurisrudence, and resolutions of the

CommissionD=d6 to nullif! the ruling contained in the &esolution of the Commission

=Second Division6 romulgated o 4une +9, 5..+, that the votes of resondent Codilla are considered stray and invalid H said ruling $eingissued on the $asis of an inalica$le decision, and contrar! toesta$lished jurisrudenceD

=e6 to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers of @e!te, uon the finalit! of this resolution, to reconvene and roclaim etitioner Codilla as the%inning candidate for &eresentative of the Fourth @egislative district of @e!te to coml! %ith its ministerial dut! to roclaim the candidate %hogarnered the highest number of votes in the elections for that positionD

and=f6 to order intervenor-oositor @ocsin, uon the finalit! of this resolution, to

vacate the office of &eresentative of the Jouse of &eresentativesreresenting the Fourth legislative district of @e!te and, for this urose,to inform the Jouse of &eresentatives through the Jonora$le Sea


18/61

=a6 to &AN' the etition of Eufrocino () Codilla, Sr), and declare as nulland void the roclamation of losing candidate @ocsin, the roclamation$eing violative of election la%s, esta$lished jurisrudence, andresolutions of the Commission on ElectionsD

=$6 to lift the order of susension of roclamation of etitioner Codilla, issued

$! the Commission =Second Division6 on (a! +1, 5..+, in SPA No) .+-5.1, having $een issued %ithout hearing and %ithout an! finding that theevidence of guilt of etitioner Codilla is strong and, thus, null and voidD

=c6 to nullif! the order contained in the &esolution of the Commission=Second Division6 romulgated on 4une +9, 5..+, in SPA No) .+-5.1, for (t)he immediate proclamation of the candidate who garnered the highest number of votes, to the exclusion of respondent H and the concurrentorder for the provincial Board of Canvasser (sic) of Leyte to immediately reconvene and thereafter proclaim forthwith the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes counting out the espondent H the same$eing violative of election la%s, esta$lished jurisrudence, andresolutions of the CommissionD

=d6 to nullif! the ruling contained in the &esolution of the Commission=Second Division6 romulgated on 4une +9, 5..+, in SPA No) .+-5.1,that the votes of resondent Codilla are considered stray and invalid Hsaid ruling $eing issued on the $asis of an inalica$le decision, andcontrar! to esta$lished jurisrudenceD

=e6 to order the rovincial Board of Canvassers of @e!te, uon the finalit! of this resolution, to reconvene and roclaim etitioner Codilla as the%inning candidate for &eresentative of the Fourth legislative district of @e!te he =sic 6 having garnered the highest number of votes in theelections for the position! and

=f6 to order resondent @ocsin, uon the finalit! of this resolution, to vacatethe office of &eresentative of the Jouse of &eresentatives reresentingthe Fourth @egislative district of @e!te and, for this urose, to inform theJouse of &eresentatives through the Jonora$le Sea


19/61

'he (A4#&'3 "EC3S3#N %as arrived at after roer consultation %ith those %ho joined the majorit!) 'he Chairman and the three =76 Commissioners comrising themajorit! decided that no one %ill $e assigned to %rite a (ajorit! "ecision) 3nstead, eachone %ill %rite his o%n searate oinion) Commissioners Borra, 'uason, 4r) and theundersigned Chairman su$mitted searate oinions) Commissioner @antion %rote an

e>lanation on his vote)H[50]

'he aforeuoted judgment %as adoted in a Vote of AdotionH signed $!Commissioners &alh C) @antion, &esurreccion G) Borra and Florentino A) 'uason, 4r) [51]

R+so!"+!t Los! "" !ot +4 /o- ts "+so! !!u44!g +/ /o4-to!) 3nstead, she filed a Comment and (anifestationH[52] %ith theC#(E@EC en banc uestioning the rocedure and the manner $! %hich the decision%as issued) 3n addition, resondent @ocsin reuested and %as issued an oinion $!Jouse of &eresentatives E>ecutive "irector and Chief @egal Counsel @eonardo B)Palicte 333 declaring that the C#(E@EC has no jurisdiction to nullif! the roclamation of resondent @ocsin after she had taecutive 4udge Fortunito @) (adrona of the &egional 'rial Court of #rmoc Cit!)[5;]

#n Setem$er +9, 5..+, etitioner %rote the Jouse of &eresentatives, thruresondent Sea


20/61

issued $! @egal Affairs "eut! Secretar!-eneral audencio A) (endoza, 4r), for Sea> >)H

'hese not%ithstanding, and desite receit $! the Jouse of &eresentatives of a

co! of the C#(E@EC en banc resolution on Setem$er 5., 5..+, [60] no action %asta


21/61

Jouse considering that2 =+6 it affects the mem$ershi of the JouseD and =56 there isnothing in the &ules of the Jouse of &eresentatives %hich imoses a dut! on theJouse Sea


22/61

3n his &el!,[6


23/61

arties against an! candidate %ho in an action or rotest in %hich he is aart! is declared $! final decision of a cometent court guilt! of, or found $!the Commission of25)a having given mone! or other material consideration to influence, induce

or corrut the voters or u$lic officials erforming electoral functionsD

5)$ having committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidac!D5)c having sent in his election camaign an amount in e>cess of thatallo%ed $! the #mni$us Election CodeD

5)d having solicited, received or made an! contri$ution rohi$ited underSections 1/, /:, /0, /8 and +.9 of the #mni$us Election CodeD

5)e having violated an! of Sections 1., 17, 1:, 10 and 50+, aragrahs d, e, > > > >> > > >

=96 Ion a!ment of the filing fee of P+,...).. and legal research fee ofP5.).., the offices concerned shall doc


24/61

&esolution No) 79.5 clearl! reuires the C#(E@EC, through the &egional Election"irector, to issue summons to the resondent candidate together %ith a co! of theetition and its enclosures, if an!, %ithin three =76 da!s from the filing of the etition for disualification) Indou$tedl!, this is to afford the resondent candidate the oortunit!to ans%er the allegations in the etition and hear his side) 'o ensure comliance %ith

this reuirement, the C#(E@EC &ules of Procedure reuires the return of thesummons together %ith the roof of service to the Cler< of Court of the C#(E@EC%hen service has $een comleted, vi# 2

&ule +9) Summons

> > > > >> > > >

Section :) R+tu/!)- hen the service has $een comleted $! ersonal service, theserver shall give notice thereof, $! registered mail, to the rotestant or his counsel andshall return the summons to the Cler< of Court concerned %ho issued it, accomanied%ith the roof of service)

Section 0) '/oo o S+/+)- Proof of service of summons shall $e made in the manner rovided for in the &ules of Court in the Philiines)H

'hereafter, hearings, to $e comleted %ithin ten =+.6 da!s from the filing of the Ans%er, must $e conducted) 'he hearing officer is reuired to su$mit to the Cler< of theCommission his findings, reorts and recommendations %ithin five =:6 da!s from thecomletion of the hearing and recetion of evidence together %ith the comlete recordsof the case)

=a6 '+tto!+/ ?s !ot !ot+" o t+ +tto! o/ s "s=u4to! t/oug t+s+/+ o su--o!s !o/ o t+ oto!s to sus+!" s /o4-to!.

'he records of the case do not sho% that summons %as served on theetitioner) 'he! do not contain a co! of the summons allegedl! served on theetitioner and its corresonding roof of service) Furthermore, rivate resondentnever re$utted etitionerMs reeated assertion that he %as not roerl! notified of theetition for his disualification $ecause he never received summons)[;1] Petitioner claimsthat rior to receiving a telegrahed #rder from the C#(E@EC Second "ivision on (a!55, 5..+, directing the "istrict Board of Canvassers to susend his roclamation, he%as never summoned nor furnished a co! of the etition for his disualification) Je%as a$le to o$tain a co! of the etition and the (a! 55 #rder of the C#(E@ECSecond "ivision $! ersonall! going to the C#(E@EC &egional #ffice on (a! 57,5..+) 'hus, he %as a$le to file his Ans%er to the disualification case onl! on (a! 59,5..+)

(ore, the roclamation of the etitioner %as susended in gross violation of section85 of the #mni$us Election Code %hich rovides2

Sec) 85) Effects of disualification cases and riorit!)- 'he Commission and the courtsshall give /o/t7 to cases of disualification $! reason of violation of this Act to t++!" tt !4 "+so! s44 + /+!"+/+" !ot 4t+/ t! s++! "7s +o/+ t++4+to! ! ? t+ "s=u4to! s sougt.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn71


25/61

An! candidate %ho has $een declared $! final judgment to $e disualified shall not $evoted for, and the votes cast for him shall not $e counted) N++/t+4+ss, o/ !7/+so!, !""t+ s !ot "+4/+" 7 !4 Bu"g-+!t +o/+ ! +4+to! to +"s=u4+" !" + s ot+" o/ !" /+++s t+ ?!!!g !u-+/ o ot+s ! su+4+to!, s o4to! o t+ /oso!s o t+ /++"!g s+to!s s44 !ot

/++!t s /o4-to! !" ssu-to! to o+.D (emphases supplied)3n the instant case, etitioner has not $een disualified $! final judgment %hen the

elections %ere conducted on (a! +9, 5..+) 'he &egional Election "irector has !et toconduct hearing on the etition for his disualification) After the elections, etitioner %asvoted in office $! a %ide margin of +8,/.7) #n (a! +0, 5..+, ho%ever, resondent@ocsin filed a (ost Irgent (otion for the susension of etitionerMs roclamation) 'he(ost Irgent (otion contained a statement to the effect that a co! %as served to theetitioner through registered mail) 'he records reveal that no registr! receit %asattached to rove such service) [;2] 'his violates C#(E@EC &ules of Procedure reuiringnotice and service of the motion to all arties, vi# 2

Section 9) Not+)- Notice of a motion shall $e served $! the movant to all artiesconcerned, at least three =76 da!s $efore the hearing thereof, together %ith a co! of themotion) For good cause sho%n, the motion ma! $e heard on shorter notice, eseciall!on matters %hich the Commission or the "ivision ma! disose of on its o%n motion)'he notice shall $e directed to the arties concerned and shall state the time and laceof the hearing of the motion)Section :) '/oo o S+/+)- No motion shall $e acted uon $! the Commission%ithout roof of service of notice thereof, e>cet %hen the Commission or a "ivision issatisfied that the rights of the adverse art! or arties are not affected)H

&esondentMs (ost Irgent (otion does not fall under the e>cetions to notice andservice of motions) First, the susension of roclamation of a %inning candidate is not a

matter %hich the C#(E@EC Second "ivision can disose of motu proprio) Section 0 of &)A) No) 0090*87 reuires that the susension must $e uon motion $! the comlainantor an! intervenorH, vi# 2

Section 0) Effect of "isualification Case)- An! candidate %ho has $een declared $!final judgment to $e disualified shall not $e voted for, and the votes cast for him shallnot $e counted) 3f for an! reason, a candidate is not declared $! final judgment $eforean election to $e disualified and he is voted for and receives the %inning num$er ofvotes in such election, t+ &ou/t o/ &o--sso! &OELE& s44 o!t!u+ ?tt+ t/4 o/ +/!g o t+ to!, !=u/7, o/ /ot+st !", uo! -oto! o t+o-4!!t o/ !7 !t+/+!o/, -7 "u/!g t+ +!"+!7 t+/+o o/"+/ t+

sus+!so! o t+ /o4-to! o su !""t+ ?+!++/ t+ +"+!+ o sgu4t s st/o!g)H =emphases supplied 6

Second, the right of an adverse art!, in this case, the etitioner, is clearl!affected) iven the lac< of service of the (ost Irgent (otion to the etitioner, said(otion is a mere scra of aer) [;:] 3t cannot $e acted uon $! the C#(E@EC Second"ivision)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn74


26/61

#n (a! +1, 5..+ at e>actl! :2.. )m), [;5] resondent @ocsin filed a Second (ostIrgent (otion for the susension of etitionerMs roclamation) Petitioner %as served aco! of the Second (otion again $! registered mail) A registr! receit [;6] %as attachedevidencing service of the Second (ost Irgent (otion to the etitioner $ut it does notaear %hen the etitioner received a co! thereof) 'hat same da!, the C#(E@EC

Second "ivision issued an #rder susending the roclamation of etitioner) Clearl!, theetitioner %as not given an! oortunit! to contest the allegations contained in theetition for disualification) 'he #rder %as issued on the ver! same da! the Second(ost Irgent (otion %as filed) 'he etitioner could not have received the Second (ostIrgent (otion, let alone ans%er the same on time as he %as served a co! thereof $!registered mail)

Inder section 0 of &)A) No) 0090, the C#(E@EC can susend roclamation onl!%hen evidence of the %inning candidateMs guilt is strong) 3n the case at $ar, t+&OELE& S+o!" $so! "" !ot -+ !7 s+ !"!g tt +"+!+ o +tto!+/@s gu4t s st/o!g) 3ts onl! $asis in susending the roclamation of theetitioner is the s+/ous!+ss o t+ 44+gto!sH in the etition for disualification)

Pertinent ortion of the #rder reads2

ithout giving due course to the etition >>> the Commission =5nd "ivision6, ursuant toSection 85 of the #mni$us Election Code in relation to Section 0, &eu$lic Act No) 0090>>> ando!s"+/!g t+ s+/ous 44+gto!s ! t+ +tto!, +/+7 "/+ts t+'/o!4 %o/" o &!ss+/s o L+7t+ to sus+!" t+ /o4-to! o/+so!"+!t, ?!!!g, u!t4 u/t+/ o/"+/s.H[;;] =emphases supplied 6

e hold that a$sent an! finding that the evidence on the guilt of the etitioner isstrong, the C#(E@EC Second "ivision gravel! a$used its o%er %hen it susended hisroclamation)

=$6 T+ &OELE& S+o!" $so! "" !ot g+ -4+ oo/tu!t7 to t++tto!+/ to ""u+ +"+!+ ! suo/t o s "++!s+ ! t+ +tto! o/ s"s=u4to! )

All throughout the roceeding, no hearing %as conducted on the etition for disualification in gross violation of section 0 of &)A) No) 0090 %hich secificall! enjoinsthe C#(E@EC to o!t!u+ ?t t+ t/4 o/ +/!g o t+ to!, !=u/7, o/ /ot+st)H 'his is also in violation of C#(E@EC &esolution No) 79.5 reuiring the&egional Election "irector to o-4+t+ t+ +/!g !" /++to! o +"+!+ %ithinten =+.6 da!s from the filing of the Ans%er, and to su$mit his findings, reorts, andrecommendations %ithin the five =:6 da!s from comletion of the hearing and therecetion of evidence)

Petitioner filed a oto! to Lt t+ O/"+/ o Sus+!so! of his roclamation on(a! 5:, 5..+) Although an oral argument on this (otion %as held, and the arties %ereallo%ed to file their resective memoranda, the (otion %as not acted uon) 3nstead, theC#(E@EC Second "ivision issued a &esolution on the etition for disualificationagainst the etitioner) 3t %as $ased on the follo%ing evidence2 =a6 the affidavits attachedto the Petition for "isualificationD =$6 the affidavits attached to the Ans%erD and =c6 theresective memoranda of the arties)



27/61

#n this score, it $ears emhasis that the hearing for (otion to @ift the #rder of Susension cannot $e su$stituted for the hearing in the disualification case) Althoughintrinsicall! lin


28/61

@ac>> shall $edisualified from continuing as candidate, or if he has $een elected, from holding officeH

'o $e disualified under the a$ove-uoted rovision, the follo%ing elements must $eroved2 =a6 the candidate, ersonall! or through his instructions, must have givenmone! or other material considerationD and =$6 the act of giving mone! or other materialconsideration must $e for the urose of influencing, inducing, or corruting the votersor u$lic officials erforming electoral functions)

3n the case at $ar, the etition for disualification alleged that =a6 etitioner orderedthe e>traction, hauling and distri$ution of gravel and sand, and =$6 his urose %as toinduce and influence the voters of Lananga and (atag-o$, @e!te to vote for him)Pertinent ortion of the etition reads2

*'he resondent *herein etitioner, %ithin the election eriod, too< advantage of his

current elective osition as Cit! (a!or of #rmoc Cit! $! illegall! and unla%full! usingduring the rohi$ited eriod, u$lic euiments and vehicles $elonging to and o%ned $!the Cit! overnment of #rmoc Cit! in e>tracting, hauling and distri$uting gravel andsand to the residents and voters of the (unicialities of Lananga and (atag-o$ @e!te,%ell %ithin the territorial limits of the 9th Congressional "istrict of @e!te, %hich acts %eree>ecuted %ithout eriod, and clearl! for the illicit urose of undul! inducing or directl!corruting various voters of Lananga and (atag-o$, %ithin the 9 th legislative district of@e!te, for the recise urose of inducing and influencing the voters$eneficiaries ofLananga and (atag-o$, @e!te to cast their votes for said resondent)H [


29/61

#n the other hand, "anilo ") (aglasang, a temorar! emlo!ee of the Cit!overnment of #rmoc assigned to chec< and record the deliver! of sand and gravel for the different $aranga!s in #rmoc, stated as follo%s2

7) 'hat on Aril 5., 5..+, 3 %as ordered $! Engr) Arnel Pada!o, an emlo!ee of theCit! Engineering #ffice, #rmoc Cit! to go to 'aga!ta!, Langga =sic 6, @e!te as that %ill

$e the source of the sand and gravel) 3 inuired %h! %e had to go to Lananga $ut Engr)Pada!ao said that itMs not a ro$lem as it %as (a!or Eufrocino () Codilla, Sr) %hoordered this and the roert! is o%ned $! the famil! of (a!or Codilla) e %ere todeliver sand and gravel to %hoever reuests from (a!or Codilla)H[>> =76 an! euiment, vehicle, facilit!,aaratus, or arahernalia o%ned $! the government or $! its olitical

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn87http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn86http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn87http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn96


30/61

su$divisions, agencies including government-o%ned or controlled cororations, or $! the Armed Forces of the Philiines for an! election camaign or for an! artisanolitical activit! > > >)H

Jo%ever, the jurisdiction of the C#(E@EC to disualif! candidates is limited tothose enumerated in section 01 of the #mni$us Election Code) All other election

offenses are $e!ond the am$it of C#(E@EC jurisdiction) [9;] 'he! are criminal and notadministrative in nature) Pursuant to sections 50: and 501 of the #mni$us ElectionCode, the o%er of the C#(E@EC is confined to the conduct of reliminar!investigation on the alleged election offenses for the urose of rosecuting the allegedoffenders $efore the regular courts of justice, vi# 2

Section 50:) '/os+uto!)- 'he Commission shall, through its dul! authorized legalofficers, have the e>clusive o%er to conduct reliminar! investigation of all electionoffenses unisha$le under this Code, and to rosecute the same) 'he Commission ma!avail of the assistance of other rosecuting arms of the government2 rovided,however, 'hat in the event that the Commission fails to act on an! comlaint %ithin fourmonths from his filing, the comlainant ma! file the comlaint %ith the office of the fiscalor %ith the (inistr! of 4ustice for roer investigation and rosecution, if %arranted)

> > > > >> > > >

Section 501) Ju/s"to!)- 'he regional trial court shall have the e>clusive original jurisdiction to tr! and decide an! criminal action or roceeding for violation of this Code,e>cet those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote %hich shall $eunder the jurisdictions of metroolitan or municial trial courts) From the decision of thecourts, aeal %ill lie as in other criminal cases)H

'he C#(E@EC Second "ivision grievousl! erred %hen it decided the

disualification case $ased on section 50+ =a6 and =o6, and not on section 01 of the#mni$us Election Code)

=d6 E4uso! o t+ ot+s ! o/ o t+ +tto!+/ !" t+ /o4-to! o /+so!"+!t Los! ?s "o!+ ?t u!"u+ st+)

'he C#(E@EC Second "ivision ordered the e>clusion of the votes cast in favor of the etitioner, and the roclamation of the resondent @ocsin, %ithout affording theetitioner the oortunit! to challenge the same) 3n the morning of 4une +:, 5..+, theProvincial Board of Canvassers convened, and on the strength of the said &esolutione>cluding the votes received $! the etitioner, certified that resondent @ocsin receivedthe highest num$er of votes) #n this $asis, resondent @ocsin %as roclaimed)

&ecords reveal that the etitioner received notice of the &esolution of theC#(E@EC Second "ivision onl! through his counsel via a facsimile message in theafternoon of 4une +:, 5..+ [9


31/61

'he essence of due rocess is the oortunit! to $e heard) hen a art! isderived of that $asic fairness, an! decision $! an! tri$unal in rejudice of his rights isvoid)

S+o!". T+ ot+s st ! o/ o t+ +tto!+/ !!ot + o!s"+/+" >st/7D!" /+so!"+!t !!ot + 4"47 /o4-+" o! tt ss.

'he &esolution of the C#(E@EC Second "ivision in SPA No) .+-5.1 contains t%odisositions2 =+6 it ruled that the etitioner %as disualified as a candidate for theosition of Congressman of the Fourth "istrict of @e!teD and =56 it ordered the immediateroclamation of the candidate %ho garnered the highest num$er of votes, to thee>clusion of the resondent *herein etitioner)

As reviousl! stated, the disualification of the etitioner is null and void for $eingviolative of due rocess and for %ant of su$stantial factual $asis) Even assuming,ho%ever, that the etitioner %as validl! disualified, it is still imroer for the C#(E@ECSecond "ivision to order the immediate e>clusion of votes cast for the etitioner asstra!, and on this $asis, roclaim the resondent as having garnered the ne>t highest

num$er of votes)

=a6 T+ o/"+/ o "s=u4to! s !ot 7+t !4, +!+, t+ ot+s st ! o/ o t+ +tto!+/ !!ot + o!s"+/+" >st/7.D

Section 0 of &)A) No) 0090 and section 85 of the #mni$us Election Code reuirea !4 Bu"g-+!t +o/+ t+ +4+to! for the votes of a disualified candidate to $econsidered stra!)H Jence, %hen a candidate has not !et $een disualified $! !4

Bu"g-+!t during the election da! and %as voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot$e declared stra!) 'o do so %ould amount to disenfranchising the electorate in %homsovereignt! resides)[99] For in voting for a candidate %ho has not $een disualified $!final judgment during the election da!, the eole voted for him bona fide, %ithout an!

intention to misal! their franchise, and in the honest $elief that the candidate %asthen ualified to $e the erson to %hom the! %ould entrust the e>ercise of the o%ers of government)[100]

'his rincile alies %ith greater force in the case at $ar considering thatthe +tto!+/ s !ot ++! "+4/+" 7 !4 Bu"g-+!t to + "s=u4+" !ot o!47+o/+ ut ++! t+/ t+ +4+to!s) 'he &esolution of the C#(E@EC Second"ivision disualif!ing the etitioner did not attain finalit!, and hence, could not $ee>ecuted, $ecause of the timel! filing of a (otion for &econsideration) Section +7, &ule+1 of the C#(E@EC &ules of Procedure on Finalit! of "ecisions and &esolutionsreads2

Sec) +7) Finalit! of "ecisions or &esolutions)- =a6 3n ordinar! actions, secialroceedings, rovisional remedies and secial reliefs, a decision or resolution of theCommission en $anc shall $ecome final and e>ecutor! after thirt! =7.6 da!s from itsromulgation)

=$6 3n Secial Actions and Secial Cases a decision or resolution of the Commissionen $anc shall $ecome final and e>ecutor! after five =:6 da!s in Secial Actionsand Secial Cases and after fifteen =+:6 da!s in all other roceedings, follo%ingtheir romulgation)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn100


32/61

U!4+ss -oto! o/ /+o!s"+/to! s s+so!47 4+", "+so! o//+so4uto! o $so! s44 +o-+ !4 !" ++uto/7 t+/ t+ 4s+ o+ 5 "7s ! S+4 Ato!s !" S+4 &s+s !" t+/ t++! 15"7s ! 44 ot+/ to!s o/ /o++"!gs, o44o?!g ts /o-u4gto!.D+-ss su4+"

3n this %ise, C#(E@EC &esolution No) 9++0, [101] issued in relation to the finalit! of resolutions or decisions in disualification cases, rovides2

'his ertains to the finalit! of decisions or resolutions of the Commission en $anc ordivision, articularl! on Secial Actions ="isualification Cases6)Secial Action cases refer to the follo%ing2=a6 Petition to den! due course to a certificate of candidac!D=$6 Petition to declare a candidate as a nuisance candidateD=c6 Petition to disualif! a candidateD and=d6 Petition to ostone or susend an election)Considering the foregoing and in order to guide field officials on the finalit! of decisions

or resolutions on secial action cases =disualification cases6 the Commission,&ES#@VES, as it is here$! &ES#@VE", as follo%s2=+6 the decision or resolution of the En Banc of the Commission on

disualification cases shall $ecome final and e>ecutor! after five =:6 da!sfrom its romulgation unless restrained $! the Sureme CourtD

=56 the decision or resolution of a "ivision on disualification cases shall$ecome final and e>ecutor! after the lase of five =:6 da!s unless a motionfor reconsideration is seasona$l! filedD

=76 %here the ground for disualification case is $! reason of non-residence,citizenshi, violation of election la%s and other analogous cases and on theda! of the election the resolution has not $ecome final and e>ecutor! the BE3

shall tall! and count the votes for such disualified candidateD=96 the decision or resolution of the En Banc on nuisance candidates,articularl! %hether the nuisance candidate has the same name as the $onafide candidate shall $e immediatel! e>ecutor!D

=:6 the decision or resolution of a "3V3S3#N on nuisance candidate, articularl!%here the nuisance candidate has the same name as the $ona fidecandidate shall $e immediatel! e>ecutor! after the lase of five =:6 da!sunless a motion for reconsideration is seasona$l! filed) 3n %hich case, thevotes cast shall not $e considered stra! $ut shall $e counted and tallied forthe $ona fide candidate)

ll resolutions, orders and rules inconsistent herewith are hereby modified or repealed&*

Considering the timel! filing of a (otion for &econsideration, the C#(E@ECSecond "ivision gravel! a$used its discretion in ordering the immediate disualificationof the etitioner and ordering the e>clusion of the votes cast in his favor) Section 5, &ule+/ of the C#(E@EC &ules of Procedure is ver! clear that a timel! (otion for &econsideration shall susend the e>ecution or imlementation of the resolution, vi# 2

Section 5) eriod for filing +otion for econsideration)- A motion to reconsider adecision, resolution, order, or ruling of a "ivision shall $e filed %ithin five =:6 da!s from

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn101


33/61

the romulgation thereof) Su -oto!, !ot /o o/-, sus+!"s t+ ++uto! o/ -4+-+!tto! o t+ "+so!, /+so4uto!, o/"+/ o/ /u4!g.H =emphases supplied 6 R+so!"+!t Los!, s -+/+ s+o!" 4+/, !!ot + /o4-+".

(ore $razen is the roclamation of resondent @ocsin %hich violates the settleddoctrine that the candidate %ho o$tains the second highest num$er of votes ma! not $e

roclaimed %inner in case the %inning candidate is disualified)[102] 3n ever! election, theeoleMs choice is the aramount consideration and their e>ressed %ill must at alltimes $e given effect) hen the majorit! seatremel! reugnant to the $asic concet of the constitutionall! guaranteedright to suffrage if a candidate %ho has not acuired the majorit! or luralit! of votes isroclaimed %inner and imosed as reresentative of a constituenc!, the majorit! of%hich have ositivel! declared through their $allots that the! do not choose him) 'osimlisticall! assume that the second lacer %ould have received that (sic) other votes

%ould $e to su$stitute our judgment for the mind of the voters) Je could not $econsidered the first among the ualified candidates $ecause in a field %hich e>cludesthe ualified candidate, the conditions %ould have su$stantiall! changed)

> > > > >> > > >

'he effect of a decision declaring a erson ineligi$le to hold an office is onl! that theelection fails entirel!, that the %reath of victor! cannot $e transferred from thedisualified %inner to the reudiated loser $ecause the la% then as no% onl! authorizesa declaration in favor of the erson %ho has o$tained a luralit! of votes, and does notentitle the candidate receiving the ne>t highest num$er of votes to $e declared elected)

3n such case, the electors have failed to ma


34/61

C+t+/ t+ /o4-to! o /+so!"+!t Los! "+st+" t+ &OELE& enbanc o Bu/s"to! to /++? ts 4"t7.

&esondent @ocsin su$mits that the C#(E@EC en banc has no jurisdiction to annulher roclamation) She maintains that the C#(E@EC en banc %as $een divested of

jurisdiction to revie% the validit! of her roclamation $ecause she has $ecome amem$er of the Jouse of &eresentatives) 'hus, she contends that the roer forum touestion her mem$ershi to the Jouse of &eresentatives is the Jouse of &eresentative Electoral 'ri$unal =J&E'6)

e find no merit in these contentions)

F/st. T+ 4"t7 o t+ /+so!"+!t@s /o4-to! ?s o/+ ssu+ ! t+oto! o/ R+o!s"+/to! s+so!47 4+" 7 t+ +tto!+/.

3n his timel! (otion for &econsideration %ith the C#(E@EC en banc, etitioner argued that the C#(E@EC Second "ivision erred thus2

=+6 in disualif!ing etitioner on the $asis solel! of the du$ious declaration ofthe %itnesses for resondent @ocsinD

=56 in adoting in toto the allegations of the %itnesses for resondent @ocsinDand

=76 ! /o-u4gt!g t+ /+so4uto! ! o4to! o ts o?! /u4+s o/o+"u/+ !" ! "/+t!g t+/+! t+ --+"t+ /o4-to! o t+s+o!" g+st ot+ g+tt+/.@D(emphases supplied)

3n suort of his third assignment of error, etitioner argued that the Second"ivisionMs directive for the immediate roclamation of the second highest vote-getter isremature considering that the &esolution has !et to $ecome final and

e>ecutor!)H[10edite disosition of election cases,including re-roclamation controversies) All such election cases shall $e heard anddecided in division, rovided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall $edecided $! the Commission en banc )H

Pursuant to this Constitutional mandate, the C#(E@EC &ules of Procedurerovides2

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/150605.htm#_ftn108


35/61

>Ru4+ 19. oto!s o/ R+o!s"+/to!.8Section +) rounds for +otion for econsideration&- A motion for reconsideration ma!$e filed on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to justif! the decision, order orruling, or that the said decision, order or ruling is contrar! to la%)Section 5) eriod for filing +otion for econsideration)- A motion to reconsider a

decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a "ivision shall $e filed %ithin five =:6 da!s fromthe romulgation thereof) Su -oto!, !ot /o o/-, sus+!"s t+ ++uto! o/ -4+-+!tto! o t+ "+so!, /+so4uto!, o/"+/ o/ /u4!g.HSection 7) -orm and Contents of +otion for econsideration)- 'he motion shall $everified and shall oint out secificall! the findings or conclusions of the decision,resolution, order or ruling %hich are not suorted $! the evidence or %hich are contrar!to la%, maress reference to the testimonial or documentar! evidence or to therovisions of la% alleged to $e contrar! to such findings or resolutions)Section 9) .ffect of +otion for econsideration on eriod to ppeal&% A motion toreconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling %hen not ro forma, susends therunning of the eriod to elevate the matter to the Sureme Court)

Section :) /ow +otion for econsideration Disposed 0f )- Ion the filing of a motion toreconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a "ivision, the Cler< of Courtconcerned shall, %ithin t%ent!-four =596 hours from the filing thereof, notif! the PresidingCommissioner) 'he latter shall %ithin t%o =56 da!s thereafter certif! the case to theCommission en banc )Section 0& Duty of the Cler1 of Court of the Commission to set +otion for /earing&% 'heCler< of Court concerned shall calendar the motion for reconsideration for the resolutionof the Commission en banc %ithin ten =+.6 da!s from the certificationthereof)H (emphases supplied)

Since the etitioner seasona$l! filed a (otion for &econsideration of the #rder of the Second "ivision susending his roclamation and disualif!ing him, the

C#(E@EC en banc %as not divested of its jurisdiction to revie% the validit! of the said#rder of the Second "ivision) 'he said #rder of the Second "ivision %as !etunenforcea$le as it has not attained finalit!D the timel! filing of the motion for reconsideration susends its e>ecution) 3t cannot, thus, $e used as the $asis for theassumtion in office of the resondent as the dul! elected &eresentative of the9th legislative district of @e!te)

S+o!". It s t+ (ous+ o R+/+s+!tt+s E4+to/4 T/u!4 (RET ?s !o Bu/s"to! ! t+ !st!t s+.

&esondent contends that having $een roclaimed and having ta


36/61

'o stress again, at the time of the roclamation of resondent @ocsin, the validit! of the &esolution of the C#(E@EC Second "ivision %as seasona$l! challenged $! theetitioner in his (otion for &econsideration) 'he issue %as still %ithin the e>clusive

jurisdiction of the C#(E@EC en banc to resolve) Jence, the J&E' cannot assume jurisdiction over the matter)

3n 'uHo! s. &u,[110] even the J&E' ruled that the doctrinal ruling that once aroclamation has $een made and a candidate-elect has assumed office, it is this'ri$unal that has jurisdiction over an election contest involving mem$ers of the Jouse of &eresentatives, ou4" !ot + ++! --+"t+47 44+ "u+ to t+ ssu+/+g/"!g t+ 4"t7 o t+ +/7 &OELE& /o!ou!+-+!ts t+-s+4+s)H 'his is$ecause the J&E' has no jurisdiction to revie% resolutions or decisions of theC#(E@EC, %hether issued $! a division or en banc )

T+ !st!t s+ "o+s !ot !o4+ t+ +4+to! !" =u4to! o /+so!"+!tLos!.

&esondent @ocsin maintains that the roer recourse of the etitioner is to file a

etition for "uo warranto %ith the J&E')

A etition for "uo warranto ma! $e filed onl! on the grounds of ineligi$ilit! anddislo!alt! to the &eu$lic of the Philiines) [111] 3n the case at $ar, neither the eligi$ilit! of the resondent @ocsin nor her lo!alt! to the &eu$lic of the Philiines is inuestion) 'here is no issue that she %as ualified to run, and if she %on, to assumeoffice)

A etition for "uo warranto in the J&E' is directed against one %ho has $een dul!elected and roclaimed for having o$tained the highest num$er of votes $ut %hoseeligi$ilit! is in uestion at the time of such roclamation) 3t is evident that resondent@ocsin cannot $e the su$ject of "uo warranto roceeding in the J&E') She lost the

elections to the etitioner $! a %ide margin) Jer roclamation %as a atent nullit!) Jer remature assumtion to office as &eresentative of the 9 th legislative district of @e!te%as void from the $eginning) 3t is the height of a$surdit! for the resondent, as a loser,to tell etitioner Codilla, Sr), the %inner, to unseat her via a "uo warranto roceeding)

IIIC+t+/ t s t+ -!st+/4 "ut7 o t+ u4 /+so!"+!ts to

/+og!H+ +tto!+/ &o"44, S/. s t+ 4+g447 +4+t+" R+/+s+!tt+o t+ :t 4+gs4t+ "st/t o L+7t+ + /+so!"+!t Los!.

Inder &ule 0:, section 7 of the +//8 &ules of Civil Procedure, an! erson ma! filea verified etition for mandamus %hen an! tri$unal, cororation, $oard, officer or erson unla%full! neglects the erformance of an act %hich the la% secificall! enjoinsas a dut! resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unla%full! e>cludes another fromthe use and enjo!ment of a right or office to %hich such other is entitled, and there is noother lain, seed! and adeuate remed! in the ordinar! course of la%)H [112] For a etitionfor mandamus to roser, it must $e sho%n that the su$ject of the etition for



37/61

mandamus is a -!st+/4 act or dut!, and !ot u/+47 "s/+to!/7 on the art of the$oard, officer or erson, and that the etitioner has a %ell-defined, clear and certainright to %arrant the grant thereof)

'he distinction $et%een a ministerial and discretionar! act is %ell delineated) Aurel! ministerial act or dut! is one %hich an officer or tri$unal erforms in a given state

of facts, in a rescri$ed manner, in o$edience to the mandate of a legal authorit!,%ithout regard to or the e>ercise of his o%n judgment uon the roriet! or imroriet!of the act done) 3f the la% imoses a dut! uon a u$lic officer and gives him the right todecide ho% or %hen the dut! shall $e erformed, such dut! is discretionar! and notministerial) 'he dut! is ministerial onl! %hen the discharge of the same reuires neither the e>ercise of official discretion or judgment) [113]

3n the case at $ar, the administration of oath and the registration of the etitioner inthe &oll of (em$ers of the Jouse of &eresentatives reresenting the 9 th legislativedistrict of @e!te is no longer a matter of discretion on the art of the u$lic resondents)'he facts are settled and $e!ond disute2 etitioner garnered 8+,7:. votes as against

resondent @ocsin %ho onl! got :7, 998 votes in the (a! +9, 5..+ elections) 'heC#(E@EC Second "ivision initiall! ordered the roclamation of resondent @ocsinD on(otion for &econsideration the C#(E@EC en banc set aside the order of its Second"ivision and ordered the roclamation of the etitioner) 'he "ecision of theC#(E@EC en banc has not $een challenged $efore this Court $! resondent @ocsinand said "ecision has $ecome final and e>ecutor!)

3n sum, the issue of %ho is the rightful &eresentative of the 9th legislative district of @e!te has $een finall! settled $! the C#(E@EC en banc , the constitutional $od! %ith

jurisdiction on the matter) T+ /u4+ o 4? "+-!"s tt ts $+so! + o+7+" 744 o4s o t+ 4!". T+/+ s !o 4t+/!t+ to t+ /u4+ o 4? ++t t+ /+g!o os !" o!uso!)

IN #IEC C(EREOF, the Petition for (andamus is granted) Pu$lic Sea


38/61

S7!ossS744

E+ 8A+(

[G.R. No. 135691. September 27, 1999]

EMMANUEL SINAA, petitioner , vs. MIGUEL MULA !"# $MMISSI$N

$N ELE%I$NS, respondents.

& E I S I $ N

&A'I&E, (R., C.J .)

8efore us is a special ci/il action for certiorari, mandamus and prohi$ition, with a pra%er for preliminar% in?unction andor temporar% restraining order assailing the Resolution of 5 Octo$er

'227, of respondent (ommission on Elections =hereafter (OME*E(> in )A +o# 274929,

declaring as in/alid the su$stitution of ma%oralt% candidate eodoro F# )inaca, 6r# $% herein

petitioner Emmanuel D# )inaca#@'

he records disclose that in the '' Ma% '227 elections, the two opposing factions of the

ruling part% *AJA)4+C(D4CMD =hereafter *AJA)> filled in separate candidates for the position of ma%or of the Municipalit% of Malimano, )urigao del +orte# One faction headed $%Ro$ert K# 8ar$ers =hereafter 8AR8ER) WingG> nominated .rachil .# (ano% =hereafter

(A+O;>, while the other group lead $% Francisco # MAC.A) =hereafter MAC.A)

WingG> endorsed the candidac% of eodoro F# )inaca, 6r# =hereafter EODORO>#

Miguel H# Mula =hereafter MC*A>, a candidate for /ice4ma%or and $elonging to the8AR8ER) Wing,G filed $efore the (OME*E( a petition for disBualification against

EODORO which was doceted as )A 2749'# On 7 Ma% '227, the )econd Di/ision of the

(OME*E( issued a resolution disBualif%ing EODORO as candidate for ma%or of theMunicipalit% of Malimono, )urigao del +orte and ordering the cancellation of his certificate of

candidac% $ecause of prior con/iction of $igam%, a crime in/ol/ing moral turpitude#@9

On ' Ma% '227, EODORO filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaidresolution# On e/en date, herein petitioner Emmanuel D# )inaca, =hereafter EMMA+CE*>, an

independent candidate, withdrew his certificate of candidac% for )angguniang 8a%an Mem$er,

?oined and $ecame a mem$er of the *AJA) part% and was nominated $% the *AJA)

MAC.A) WingG as the su$stitute ma%oralt% candidate for the Municipalit% of Malimono,)urigao del +orte# On the $asis of said nomination, EMMA+CE* filed his certificate of

candidac%@3 attached thereto is his certificate of nomination as *AJA) ma%oralt% candidate

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/syllabi99/sept/135691_syl.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/syllabi99/sept/135691_syl.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn3


39/61

signed $% .o/ernor Francisco # MAC.A) =hereafter MAC.A)>, as part% pro/incial

chairman together with EMMA+CElLs written acceptance of the part%Ls nomination#@&

On '' Ma% '227, MC*A filed through mail another petition for disBualification, this timeagainst EMMA+CE*, which was recei/ed $% the (OME*E( on '& Ma% '227 and was

doceted as )A +o# 274929# In his petition MC*A contended that the nomination of

EMMA+CE* as su$stitute candidate is illegal on the following grounds0

a> he su$stitute, $efore he filed his (ertificate of (andidac% as *AJA) candidate, was an

independent candidate# 8eing so, he cannot rightfull% su$stitute the disBualified one

$> he nomination of respondent su$stitute $ears onl% the appro/al of ro/incial (hairman

Matugas and without consultation and consent of the higher political hierarch% especiall%

Mr# Ro$ert Ace 8ar$ers who has also a sa% on nomination of candidates within his

?urisdiction, as e/idenced $% an authorit% hereto attached as Anne< EG

c> )u$stitution generall% taes place when $% reason of a candidateLs disBualification the part%

to which he $elongs loses such representation# In the instant case, the disBualification did

not at all pre?udice *AJA) +C(D4CMD $ecause Mr# .archil .# (ano% is still there

representing the part% after the disBualification# he su$stitution is a redundanc% and notnecessar% under the circumstances, more so that it was done with malice and without the

reBuired consensus of the political hierarch%#@!

In his answer, EMMA+CE* mo/ed for the dismissal of the petition for the following

reasons0

a> he petition does not state a cause of action as it is not $ased on an% of the grounds for

disBualification as pro/ided under )ec# 57 of the Omni$us Election (ode and )ec# &=A> of

the *ocal .o/ernment (ode of '22'

$> he issue of who in *AJA) has the authorit% to nominate candidates for local officials, is

an intra4part% matter hence $e%ond the ?urisdiction of the (omelec

c> .o/# Matugas was dul% authori1ed $% *AJA) as its ro/incial (hairman and officialcandidate for ro/incial .o/ernor to nominate the part%Ls local candidates and

d> he petition is alread% moot and academic $ecause of the proclamation of EMMA+CE* as

ma%or of the Municipalit% of Malimono, )urigao del +orte# @5

On 97 Ma% '227, the (OME*E( )econd Di/ision dismissed the petition for

disBualification and upheld the candidac% for ma%or of EMMA+CE*#@: he pertinent part of

the resolution reads0

It is therefore clear, that candidate for go/ernor Matugas was clothed with the

authorit% to nominate the respondent as su$stitute candidate for the position of ma%or

of Malimono, )urigao del +orte, /ice the disBualified candidate, Apropos thereto,)ection :: of the Omni$us Election (ode states0

< < <

(onsidering that on Ma% ', '227 the proper nomination was issued $% the official of

the part% authori1ed therefor, it stands to reason that the su$stitution was /alid,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn7


40/61

respondent ha/ing accepted the nomination and his certificate of candidac% dated Ma%

', '227, correspondingl% filed#

Respondent is correct in stating that the Buestion of nomination is a part% concern

which is $e%ond the am$it of the (ommission# What matters is, the candidate has

$een certified as a part% mem$er and the nomination dul% issued in his fa/or#

8e that as it ma%, the petition is rendered moot and academic $% the proclamation of

respondent on Ma% '9, '227, as e/idenced $% the certificate of can/ass and

proclamation of winning candidates for municipal offices with )+ '55:'927 and his

oath of office dated Ma% '3, '227, which forms part of the record of this case#

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the (ommission =)econd Di/ision> RE)O*-E)

to DI)MI)) the instant petition for lac of merit#

MC*A filed a motion for reconsideration raising in the main that the signature alone of MAC.A) in the nomination was not sufficient $ecause the part%Ls authorit% to nominate was

gi/en to $oth MAC.A) and )enator Ro$ert )# 8ar$ers =hereafter 8AR8ER)>, in their ?ointcapacit%, and that the nomination of EMMA+CE* is /oid since he was an independent candidate

prior to his nomination#@7

On 5 Octo$er '227, the (OME*E( en banc issued a Resolution@2 which set aside the

resolution dated 97 Ma% '227 of the )econd Di/ision and disBualified EMMA+CE*, for thefollowing reasons0

In the motion for reconsideration, petitioner argues that the signature onl% of

.o/ernor Matugas in the nomination was not sufficient $ecause the part%Ls authorit%to nominate was gi/en to $oth .o/ernor Matugas and )enator Ro$ert 8ar$ers, in their

?oint capacit%#

We do not ha/e to resol/e this issue $ecause the more important issue is whether

respondent is disBualified as a su$stitute candidate# He was an independent candidate

for councilor at the time he filed his certificate of candidac% for ma%or as a su$stitute

of a disBualified candidate# hus, he did not $elong to the same political part% as the

su$stituted candidate#

We sustain petitionerLs position# We declare that the su$stitution of disBualifiedma%oralt% candidate eodoro F# )inaca, 6r# $% respondent Emmanuel D# )inaca was

not /alid $ecause the latter was an independent candidate for councilor prior to his

nomination as su$stitute candidate in place of the withdrawing candidate who was a

*aas part% mem$er#

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/sept99/135691.doc.htm#_edn9


41/61

I+ -IEW WHEREOF, the (ommission en banc here$% resol/es to )E A)IDE the

(ommission =)econd Di/ision>Ls resolution dated Ma% 97, '227# We declare

Emmanuel D# )inaca DI)CA*IFIED to $e a su$stitute candidate for ma%or of

Malimono, )urigao del +orte, and A++C* his proclamation as such $eing /oid ab

initio# Cpon finalit% of this resolution, he is ordered to /acate the position of ma%or of

the municipalit% of Malimono, )urigao del +orte, to which the /ice4ma%or elected inthe Ma% '', '227 elections shall succeed $% operation of law#

+ot satisfied therewith, EMMA+CE* is now $efore us alleging that the (OME*E(

committed gra/e a$use of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution# EMMA+CE* principall%contends that his nomination as a su$stitute candidate was regular and /alid hence, his

proclamation as ma%or of the Municipalit% of Malimono, )urigao del +orte must $e upheld#

In the assailed resolution, the (OME*E( disBualified EMMA+CE* solel% on the $asis thathe was an independent candidate prior to his nomination as a su$stitute candidate#

he rule on su$stitution of an official candidate of a registered or accredited political part%

who dies, withdraws or is disBualified for an% cause after the last da% for the filing of certificates

of candidac% is go/erned $% )ec# :: of the Omni$us Election (ode which pro/ides0

If after the last da% for the filing of certificates of candidac%, an official candidate of a

registered or accredited political part% dies, withdraws or is disBualified for an% cause,

onl% a person $elonging to, and certified $%, the same political part% ma% file a

certificate of candidac% to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was

disBualified# he su$stitute candidate nominated $% the political part% concerned ma%

file his certificate of candidac% for the office affected in accordance with the

preceding sections not later than mid4da% of the da% of the election# If the death,

withdrawal or disBualification should occur $etween the da% $efore the election and

mid4da% of election da%, said certificate ma%$e filed with an% $oard of election

inspectors in the political su$di/ision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of

candidates to $e /oted for $% the entire electorate of the countr%, with the

(ommission#

hus, under the said pro/ision it is necessar%, among others, that the su$stitute candidate

must $e of the same political part% as the original candidate and must $e dul% nominated as such

$% the political part%#

In the instant case, there was su$stantial compliance with the a$o/e said

reBuirements# EMMA+CE* was properl% nominated as su$stitute candidate $% the *AJA)

part% MAC.A) wingG to which EODORO, the disBualified candidate, $elongs, as

e/idenced $% the (ertificate of +omination and Acceptance signed $% MAC.A), the art%Ls pro/incial chairman#@' hat EMMA+CE* is a bona fidemem$er of the *AJA) part% is shown

not onl% $% the certificate of

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marky-cielo
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Cases Election New

Documents