G.R. No. L-53953 - JANUARY 1981 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-53953January 5, 1981 Sande Aguinaldo vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-47185January 15, 1981 Bernabe Buscayno vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-49579January 15, 1981 Jose Ma. Sison, et al. vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-54577January 15, 1981 Othoniel V. Jimenez vs. Military Commission No. 34 G.R. No. L-49473January 16, 1981 Jose Luneta, et al. vs. Special Military Commission No. 1 G.R. No. L-41419January 19, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Pablito Gida G.R. No. L-48735January 19, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Andaya G.R. No.L-47400January 19, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Enrique S. Novales, et al. G.R. No. L-21035January 22, 1981 Tan Tek Chian vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-27600January 22, 1981 Faustino Roncesvalles vs. Luis Patola G.R. No. L-38755January 22, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Pincalin G.R. No. L-38936January 22, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Romualdo A. Battung Jr. G.R. No. L-51367January 22, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Philip Valdemoro G.R. No. L-55333January 22, 1981 Alicia V. Cabatingan vs. Sandiganbayan A.M. No. 1892-CFIJanuary 27, 1981 Eduardo Estillena vs. Ostervaido Z. Emilia A.M. No. P-208January 27, 1981 Isabelo Garciano vs. Wilfredo Oyao G.R. No. L-26193January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Rodulfo Sabio G.R. No. L-26911January 27, 1981 Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev't. Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-32791January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Yutila G.R. No. L-34332January 27, 1981 Windor Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-39310January 27, 1981 John A. Imutan vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-40531January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Luisito Arias G.R. No. L-42856January 27, 1981 Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-43649January 27, 1981 Bernardo Cayaba vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-44188January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Benigno Perez G.R. No. L-45141January 27, 1981 Petronila T. Cabalquinto vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-45168January 27, 1981 Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-46338January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Herbito Lacson G.R. No. L-48548January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido C. Hinlo G.R. No. L-49778January 27, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro A. Bautista A.M. No. 1720January 31, 1981 Dy Teban Hardware & Auto Supply Co. vs. Lauro L. Tapucar A.M. No. 2035-MJJanuary 31, 1981 Francisco Carreon vs. Manuel B. Acosta A.M. No. 2395-CFIJanuary 31, 1978 Philippine Trial Lawyers Asso., Inc. vs. Enrique A. Agana, Sr. G.R. No. L-25168January 31, 1981 Kumala Salim Wing vs. Ahmad Abubakar G.R. No. L-26399January 31, 1981 Fernando Martinez vs. Florencia Evangelista G.R. No. L-30538January 31, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Tirol G.R. No. L-41022-23January 31, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Cecilio Familgan G.R. No. L-47553January 31, 1981 Jane L. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-25836-37January 31, 1981 Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Jose M. Aruego The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Sande Aguinaldo vs. Commission on Elections Bernabe Buscayno vs. Juan Ponce Enrile Jose Ma. Sison, et al. vs. Juan Ponce Enrile Othoniel V. Jimenez vs. Military Commission No. 34 Jose Luneta, et al. vs. Special Military Commission No. 1 People of the Philippines vs. Pablito Gida People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Andaya People of the Philippines vs. Enrique S. Novales, et al. Tan Tek Chian vs. Republic of the Philippines Faustino Roncesvalles vs. Luis Patola People of the Philippines vs. Jose Pincalin People of the Philippines vs. Romualdo A. Battung Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Philip Valdemoro Alicia V. Cabatingan vs. Sandiganbayan Eduardo Estillena vs. Ostervaido Z. Emilia Isabelo Garciano vs. Wilfredo Oyao People of the Philippines vs. Rodulfo Sabio Atlas Consolidated Mining & Dev't. Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Yutila Windor Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. John A. Imutan vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Luisito Arias Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals Bernardo Cayaba vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission People of the Philippines vs. Benigno Perez Petronila T. Cabalquinto vs. Republic of the Philippines Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Herbito Lacson People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido C. Hinlo People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro A. Bautista Dy Teban Hardware & Auto Supply Co. vs. Lauro L. Tapucar Francisco Carreon vs. Manuel B. Acosta Philippine Trial Lawyers Asso., Inc. vs. Enrique A. Agana, Sr. Kumala Salim Wing vs. Ahmad Abubakar Fernando Martinez vs. Florencia Evangelista People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Tirol People of the Philippines vs. Cecilio Familgan Jane L. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Jose M. Aruego The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-53953 January 5, 1981

SANDE AGUINALDO, NARCISO MENDIOLA, OLYMPIO MEDINA, ROLANDO HERNANDEZ and LEOPOLDO PINONpetitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SATURNINO V. TIAMSON,respondents.

FERNANDO,C.J.:

Two circumstances decisive in their significance stand out in this certiorari proceeding against respondent Commission on Elections. It was filed only on May 30, 1980, after an election duly held and after the proclamation of the victorious candidate for Mayor, private respondent Saturnino TIAMSON. Moreover, as far back as March 10, 1980, an action for quo warranto had been instituted by his opponent Cesar Villones. The plea for its dismissal made in the comments both of the Solicitor General,1appearing for respondent Commission, as well as respondent Tiamson, considered as answers, must therefore be sustained. Since Venezuela v. Commission on Elections,2this Court has invariably adhered to the principle that after the holding of the January 30, 1980 election, and a proclamation thereafter made, a petition to disqualify a candidate based on a change of political party affiliation within six months immediately preceding or following an election,3filed with this Court after January 30, 1980, arising from a pre-proclamation controversy, should be dismissed without prejudice to such ground being passed upon in a proper election protest or quo warranto proceeding. Where, however, such constitutional provision had been seasonably invoked prior to that date with the Commission on Elections having acted on it and the matter then elevated to this Court before such election, the issue thus presented should be resolved.

The facts are undisputed. In the January 30, 1980 election, there were three candidates, Saturnino Tiamson of the Nacionalista Party, Cesar Villones of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan and Edgardo Samson of the National Union for Liberation.4After the canvassing of the election returns, it was shown that private respondent Tiamson had more than 117 votes over the candidate Villones.5On February 29, 1980, he was proclaimed as Mayor by the Municipal Board of Canvassers and on March 3, 1980 assumed such position.6On March 10, 1980, as mentioned, Villones filed a quo warranto petition based on the above disqualification provision of the Constitution.7This certiorari proceeding, as noted at the outset, was not filed until May 30, 1980, directed against an order of respondent Commission on Elections denying the motion for reconsideration of a previous order of dismissal of a petition to disqualify private respondent Tiamson.8

It is thus manifest why this certiorari proceeding must be dismissed. The ruling in Venezuela was applied in Villegas v. Commission on Elections,9Potencion v. Conunission on Elections,10Arcenas v. Commission on Elections,11and Singco v. Conunission on Elections.12A citation from Arcenas finds pertinence: "Nor does a decision of this character detract from the binding force of the principle announced in Reyes v. Comelec, that the provision on disqualification arising from a change in a political party affiliation by a candidate within six months is both 'innovative and mandatory. 'As should be clear, the issue of disqualification has not been rendered moot and academic, only the remedy to be pursued is no longer the pre- proclamation controversy."13So it must be in this case with a quo warranto petition having already been filed as far back as March 10, 1980, by the party most interested, no less than the losing candidate, Cesar Villones.

WHEREFORE,the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs.

Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero. De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring.

I concur. The decision at bar penned by the Chief Justice adheres to his concurring opinion inSingco v. Comelec(G.R. No. 52830, November 28, 1980) to the effect that 11 after the holding of the January 30, 1980 election, and a proclamation thereafter made, a petition to disqualify a candidate based on a change of political party affiliation .x x x filed with this Court after January 30, 1980, arising from a pre-proclamation controversy, should be dismissed without prejudice to such ground being passed upon in a proper election protest or quo warranto proceeding" (at page 2, main opinion).

I submit that the better rule is that stated by the Chief Justice himself for the Court in hisponenciainArcenas vs. Comelec(G. R. No. 54039, November 28, 1980), to wit: "that it is of "no materiality" to distinguish whether the petition for disqualification against the winning candidate was filed before the election or after the proclamation of the winner since "theratio decidendiis broad enough to cover the present situation for it would be time-consuming and in the end self-defeating if at this stage the pre-proclamation controversy is not laid to rest. The better view, as noted inVenezuela(G.R. No. 53532, July 25, 1980), is that resort be had to the remedy of an election protest or a quo warranto, whichever is proper."

This is in line with my separate concurrence inReyes vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 52699, May 15, 1980), reiterating my submittal that all such pre-proclamation cases seeking to disqualify the winner on the ground of alleged turncoatism should be ordered disraissedafterthe elections, subject to the filing of an appropriate quo warranto action or election protest against the winner in the appropriate forum (the Comelec for provincial and city officials and the proper Court of First Instance for municipal officials). This coincides with the President's own view as he reported in the February 27, 1980 newspapers "to have ordered the lawyers of the KBL [Kilusang Bagong Lipunan] to withdraw all disqualification charges to allow already proclaimed opposition candidates involved in such cases to assume office," reserving the right to file an election protest (although such Presidential orders seem to have been ignored since I am not aware of any of the numerous disqualification cases before us that have been so withdrawn).

All such pre-proclamation cases on grounds of alleged turncoatism of the winning candidate should now be laid to rest and the winning candidate should be snowed at last to assume his office in accordance with the electorate's verdict and set right matters where even at this late stage, or 11 months after the holding of the elections, the winning candidate has been stopped from assuming office whereas the rejected loser was the one wrongfully proclaimed or allowed to continue in office on a holdover capacity as inSingco, supra, Abrasaldo vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 53730, November 13,1980) and other cases.ℒαwρhi৷

Footnotes