G.R. No. 150605/December 10, 2002 EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR v HON. OSE DE !ENECIA, RO"ER#O $. NA%ARENO &'( MA. !IC#ORIA L. LOCSIN FAC#S) Petit etitio ione nerr Codi Codill lla a and and respo espond nden entt Locsi ocsin n wer were cand candid idat ates es for for the the posi positi tion on of Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte during the May 14, 2001 elections. n May !, 2001, one "osephine de la Cru#, a registered voter of $ananga, Leyte, %led dir directl ectly y with with the the CM& CM&L& L&C C 'ain 'ain o(ce o(ce a Petit etitio ion n for for )is* )is*ual uali% i%ca cati tion on agai agains nstt the the petitioner for indirectly indirectly soliciting votes fro' the registered voters of $ananga and Matag+ o, Leyte, in violation of -ection ! /a of the 'nius &lection Code. n May 10, 2001, the CM&L&C -econd )ivision issued an rder delegating the hearing and reception of evidence on the dis*uali%cation case to the (ce of the Regional )irector of Region . . n May 11 11,, 20 2001 01,, the CM&L&C CM&L&C -econd -econd )ivisi )ivision on sent sent a telegr telegra' a' infor infor'in 'ing g the petitioner that a dis*uali%cation case was %led against hi' and that the petition was re'anded to the Regional Regional &lection )irector for investigation. 3t the ti'e of the elections on May 14, 2001, the Regional &lection )irector had yet to hear hear the dis dis*ual *uali%c i%cati ation on case. case. Conse* Conse*uen uently tly,, petiti petitione onerr was includ included ed in the list list of candidates for district representative and was voted for. he initial results showed that petitioner was the winning candidate. n May 1!, 20 2001 01,, respon responden dentt Locsi Locsin n %led %led a -econd -econd Most Most 5rgen 5rgentt Motion Motion to -uspen -uspend d Procla'ation Procla'ation of Respondent. Respondent. n May 26, 2001, petitioner %led a Motion to Lift rder of -uspension. Petitioner7s Motion to Lift the rder of -uspension, however, was not resolved. nstead, on "une 14, 2001, the CM&L&C -econd )ivision pro'ulgated its Resolution in -P3 8o. 01+20! . 9y virtue virtue of the said said Resolut esolution ion,, the votes votes cast cast for petiti petitione oner, r, totali totaling ng :1 :1,;6 ,;60, 0, were were declare declared d stray even efore efore said Resolution Resolution could gain %nality. %nality. Respondent espondent Locsin Locsin too< her oath of o(ce on "une 1!, 2001 and assu'ed o(ce on "une ;0, 2001. n "une 21, 2001, petitioner %led with the CM&L&C en anc a Petition for )eclaration of 8ullity of Procla'ation. Procla'ation. n "une 2!, 2001, petitioner %led an 5rgent Manifestation stating that he was deprived of a fair fair hear hearin ing g on the the dis* dis*ua uali li%c %cat atio ion n case case.. n 3u 3ugu gust st 2= 2=,, 20 2001 01,, then then CM& CM&L& L&C C Chai hair'an 3lfr 3lfre edo L. 9eni enipay payo issu issue ed a >ote ote and and pini pinio on and and -u'' -u''ar ary y of otes> reversing the resolution of the -econd )ivision and declaring the procla'ation of respondent Locsin as null and void. he dispositive portion reads? Respondent Locsin did not appeal fro' this decision annulling her procla'ation. nstead, she %led a >Co''ent and Manifestation> with the CM&L&C en anc *uestioning the procedure procedure and the 'anner y which the decision was issued.
n -epte'er , 2001, the CM&L&C en anc issued an rder constituting the 'e'ers of the Provincial 9oard of Canvassers of Leyte to i'ple'ent the aforesaid decision. n -epte'er 12, 2001, petitioner Codilla was proclai'ed y the Provincial 9oard of Canvassers as the duly+elected Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. n -epte'er 14, 2001, petitioner wrote the @ouse of Representatives, thru respondent -pea /e'phases supplied --5&-? /a hether the procla'ation of respondent Locsin y the CM&L&C -econd )ivision is valid e %nd that the procla'ation of respondent Locsin is null and void for the following reasons?
F*r+. #-e e**o'er &+ (e'*e( (e roce++ (r*' -e e'*re rocee(*'+ e&(*' o -e roc&m&*o' o3 re+o'(e' Loc+*'. Resolution 8o. ;402 clearly re*uires the CM&L&C, through the Regional &lection )irector, to issue su''ons to the respondent candidate together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any, within three /; days fro' the %ling of the petition for dis*uali%cation. 5ndoutedly, this is to aDord the respondent candidate the opportunity to answer the allegations in the petition and hear his side. o ensure co'pliance with this re*uire'ent, the CM&L&C Rules of Procedure re*uires the return of the su''ons together with the proof of service to the Cler< of Court of the CM&L&C when service has een co'pleted. /a $e**o'er &+ 'o 'o*4e( o3 -e e**o' 3or -*+ (*+&*4c&*o' -ro-e +erv*ce o3 +mmo'+ 'or o3 -e Mo*o'+ o ++e'( -*+ roc&m&*o'. / #-e COMELEC Seco'( D*v*+*o' (*( 'o *ve &me oor'* o -e e**o'er o &((ce ev*(e'ce *' +or o3 -*+ (e3e'+e *' -e e**o' 3or -*+ (*+&*4c&*o' . /c -e Re+o*o' o3 -e COMELEC Seco'( D*v*+*o' (*+&*3*' -e e**o'er *+ 'o b&+e( o' +b+&'*& ev*(e'ce. Petitioner allegedly violated section ! /a of the 'nius &lection Code which reads? >-ection !. )is*uali%cations.+ 3ny candidate who, in action or protest in which he is a party is declared y %nal decision of a co'petent court guilty of or found y the
Co''ission of having /a given 'oney or other 'aterial consideration to inEuence, induce or corrupt the voters or pulic o(cials perfor'ing o(cial functions, BBB shall e dis*uali%ed fro' continuing as candidate, or if he has een elected, fro' holding o(ce> o e dis*uali%ed under the aove+*uoted provision, the following ele'ents 'ust e proved? /a the candidate, personally or through his instructions, 'ust have given 'oney or other 'aterial considerationF and / the act of giving 'oney or other 'aterial consideration 'ust e for the purpose of inEuencing, inducing, or corrupting the voters or pulic o(cials perfor'ing electoral functions. n the case at ar, the petition for dis*uali%cation alleged that /a petitioner ordered the eBtraction, hauling and distriution of gravel and sand, and / his purpose was to induce and inEuence the voters of $ananga and Matag+o, Leyte to vote for hi'. he Aurisdiction of the CM&L&C to dis*ualify candidates is li'ited to those enu'erated in section ! of the 'nius &lection Code. 3ll other election oDenses are eyond the a'it of CM&L&C Aurisdiction. hey are cri'inal and not ad'inistrative in nature. /d E7c+*o' o3 -e voe+ *' 3&vor o3 -e e**o'er &'( -e roc&m&*o' o3 re+o'(e' Loc+*' &+ (o'e *- '(e -&+e.
Seco'(. #-e voe+ c&+ *' 3&vor o3 -e e**o'er c&''o be co'+*(ere( 8+r&8 &'( re+o'(e' c&''o be v&*( roc&*me( o' -& b&+*+. /a #-e or(er o3 (*+&*4c&*o' *+ 'o e 4'&, -e'ce, -e voe+ c&+ *' 3&vor o3 -e e**o'er c&''o be co'+*(ere( 8+r&.8 -ection of R.3. 8o. 4 and section :2 of the 'nius &lection Code re*uire a 4'& 9(me' be3ore -e eec*o' for the votes of a dis*uali%ed candidate to e considered >stray.> @ence, when a candidate has not yet een dis*uali%ed y 4'& 9(me' during the election day and was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot e declared stray. o do so would a'ount to disenfranchising the electorate in who' sovereignty resides. Gor in voting for a candidate who has not een dis*uali%ed y %nal Audg'ent during the election day, the people voted for hi' ona %de, without any intention to 'isapply their franchise, and in the honest elief that the candidate was then *uali%ed to e the person to who' they would entrust the eBercise of the powers of govern'ent. his principle applies with greater force in the case at ar considering that the e**o'er -&+ 'o bee' (ec&re( b 4'& 9(me' o be (*+&*4e( 'o o' be3ore b eve' &3er -e eec*o'+ . he Resolution of the CM&L&C -econd )ivision dis*ualifying the petitioner did not attain %nality, and hence, could not e eBecuted, ecause of the ti'ely %ling of a Motion for Reconsideration. -ection 1;, Rule 1! of the CM&L&C Rules of Procedure on Ginality of )ecisions and Resolutions reads?
:c; U'e++ & mo*o' 3or reco'+*(er&*o' *+ +e&+o'&b 4e(, & (ec*+*o' or re+o*o' o3 & D*v*+*o' +-& become 4'& &'( e7ecor &3er -e &+e o3 4ve :5; (&+ *' Sec*& Ac*o'+ &'( Sec*& C&+e+ &'( &3er 43ee' :15; (&+ *' & o-er &c*o'+ or rocee(*'+, 3oo*' *+ rom&*o'.8 :em-&+*+ +*e(; :b; Re+o'(e' Loc+*', &+ & mere +eco'( &cer, c&''o be roc&*me(.
n every election, the people7s choice is the para'ount consideration and their eBpressed will 'ust at all ti'es e given eDect. hen the 'aAority spea
I' Dom*'o v. COMELEC , this Court ruled, vi#? >t would e eBtre'ely repugnant to the asic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suDrage if a candidate who has not ac*uired the 'aAority or plurality of votes is proclai'ed winner and i'posed as representative of a constituency, the 'aAority of which have positively declared through their allots that they do not choose hi'. o si'plistically assu'e that the second placer would have received that /sic other votes would e to sustitute our Audg'ent for the 'ind of the voters. @e could not e considered the %rst a'ong the *uali%ed candidates ecause in a %eld which eBcludes the *uali%ed candidate, the conditions would have sustantially changed. BBBBBBBBB he eDect of a decision declaring a person ineligile to hold an o(ce is only that the election fails entirely, that the wreath of victory cannot e transferred fro' the dis*uali%ed winner to the repudiated loser ecause the law then as now only authori#es a declaration in favor of the person who has otained a plurality of votes, and does not entitle the candidate receiving the neBt highest nu'er of votes to e declared elected. n such case, the electors have failed to 'a / hether said procla'ation divested the CM&L&C en anc of Aurisdiction to review its validity e %nd no 'erit in these contentions.
F*r+. #-e v&*(* o3 -e re+o'(e'<+ roc&m&*o' &+ & core *++e *' -e Mo*o' 3or Reco'+*(er&*o' +e&+o'&b 4e( b -e e**o'er. -ection ;, 3rticle H+C of the 1=!: Constitution e'powers the CM&L&C en anc to review, on 'otion for reconsideration, decisions or resolutions decided y a division, vi#? >-ec. ;. he Co''ission on &lections 'ay sit en anc or in two divisions, and shall pro'ulgate its rules of procedure in order to eBpedite disposition of election cases, including pre+procla'ation controversies. 3ll such election cases shall e heard and decided in division, provided that 'otions for reconsideration of decision shall e decided y the Co''ission en anc.>
Seco'(. I *+ -e Ho+e o3 Rere+e'&*ve+ Eecor& #r*b'& :HRE#; -*c- -&+ 'o 9r*+(*c*o' *' -e *'+&' c&+e. :&; #-e *++e o' -e v&*(* o3 -e Re+o*o' o3 -e COMELEC Seco'( D*v*+*o' -&+ 'o e bee' re+ove( b -e COMELEC e' b&'c.
n $=o' v+. C&, even the @R& ruled that the >doctrinal ruling that once a procla'ation has een 'ade and a candidate+elect has assu'ed o(ce, it is this riunal that has Aurisdiction over an election contest involving 'e'ers of the @ouse of Representatives, co( 'o -&ve bee' *mme(*&e &*c&be (e o -e *++e re&r(*' -e v&*(* o3 -e ver COMELEC ro'o'ceme'+ -em+eve+ .> his is ecause the @R& has no Aurisdiction to review resolutions or decisions of the CM&L&C, whether issued y a division or en anc.
:b; #-e *'+&' c&+e (oe+ 'o *'vove -e eec*o' &'( &*4c&*o' o3 re+o'(e' Loc+*'. Respondent Locsin 'aintains that the proper recourse of the petitioner is to %le a petition for quo warranto with the @R&. 3 petition for *uo warranto 'ay e %led only on the grounds of ineligiility and disloyalty to the Repulic of the Philippines. n the case at ar, neither the eligiility of the respondent Locsin nor her loyalty to the Repulic of the Philippines is in *uestion. here is no issue that she was *uali%ed to run, and if she won, to assu'e o(ce. 3 petition for quo warranto in the @R& is directed against one who has een duly elected and proclai'ed for having otained the highest nu'er of votes ut whose eligiility is in *uestion at the ti'e of such procla'ation. t is evident that respondent Locsin cannot e the suAect of *uo warranto proceeding in the @R&. -he lost the elections to the petitioner y a wide 'argin. @er procla'ation was a patent nullity. @er pre'ature assu'ption to o(ce as Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte was void fro' the eginning. t is the height of asurdity for the respondent, as a loser, to tell petitioner Codilla, -r., the winner, to unseat her via a *uo warranto proceeding. /c 3ssu'ing the invalidity of said procla'ation, whether it is the 'inisterial duty of the pulic respondents to recogni#e petitioner Codilla, -r. as the legally elected Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte vice respondent Locsin. 5nder Rule 6, section ; of the 1==: Rules of Civil Procedure, any person 'ay %le a veri%ed petition for 'anda'us >when any triunal, corporation, oard, o(cer or person unlawfully neglects the perfor'ance of an act which the law speci%cally enAoins as a duty resulting fro' an o(ce, trust, or station, or unlawfully eBcludes another fro' the use and enAoy'ent of a right or o(ce to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and ade*uate re'edy in the ordinary course of law.> Gor a petition for 'anda'us to prosper, it 'ust e shown that the suAect of the petition for 'anda'us is a 'inisterial act or duty, and not purely discretionary on the part of the oard, o(cer or person, and that the petitioner has a well+de%ned, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof. he distinction etween a 'inisterial and discretionary act is well delineated. 3 purely 'inisterial act or duty is one which an o(cer or triunal perfor's in a given state of facts, in a prescried 'anner, in oedience to the 'andate of a legal authority, without regard to or the eBercise of his own Audg'ent upon the propriety or i'propriety of the act done. f the law i'poses a duty upon a pulic o(cer and gives hi' the right to decide how or when the duty shall e perfor'ed, such duty is discretionary and not 'inisterial. he duty is 'inisterial only when the discharge of the sa'e re*uires neither the eBercise of o(cial discretion or Audg'ent.
n the case at ar, the ad'inistration of oath and the registration of the petitioner in the Roll of Me'ers of the @ouse of Representatives representing the 4th legislative district of Leyte is no longer a 'atter of discretion on the part of the pulic respondents. he facts are settled and eyond dispute? petitioner garnered :1,;60 votes as against respondent Locsin who only got 6;, 44: votes in the May 14, 2001 elections. he CM&L&C -econd )ivision initially ordered the procla'ation of respondent LocsinF on Motion for Reconsideration the CM&L&C en anc set aside the order of its -econd )ivision and ordered the procla'ation of the petitioner. he )ecision of the CM&L&C en anc has not een challenged efore this Court y respondent Locsin and said )ecision has eco'e %nal and eBecutory.
RULING) n su', the issue of who is the rightful Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte has een %nally settled y the CM&L&C en banc, the constitutional ody with Aurisdiction on the 'atter. he rule of law de'ands that its )ecision e oeyed y all o(cials of the land. here is no alternative to the rule of law eBcept the reign of chaos and confusion. 8 & @&R&G, the Petition for Manda'us is granted. Pulic -pea
