FRANCIS KING L. MARQUEZ v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.
G.R.
No. 127318 August 25, 1999
FACTS:
On
May 16, 1996, private respondent filed an election protest before the
Metropolitan Trial Court. Private respondent (then protestant) impugned the
election of petitioner (then protestee) on the ground that the latter is
disqualified by age to the office of SK Chairman. In its order of May 24, 1996,
the trial court found the protest sufficient in form and substance. It issued a
Temporary Restraining Order commanding petitioner to refrain from taking his
oath of office as SK Chairman.
On
May 27, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the election protest with
prayer for the cancellation of hearing. He stated that the averments in the
election protest are limited only on the issue of whether or not Marquez is
eligible or qualified to assume the office of SK Chairman such that private
respondent's right of action is a quo warranto proceeding although captioned as
election protest. He sought the dismissal of the election protest on the ground
that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the action and
that protestant failed to comply with SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
As
to his first assignment of error, he contended that the May 6, 1996 SK
elections are primarily governed by COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 to the effect
that the trial court's jurisdiction is confined only to frauds, irregularities
and anomalies in the conduct of the SK elections and that the determination of
eligibility or qualification of a candidate for SK elections is vested with the
election officer concerned under Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824. And
as to the second assignment of error, petitioner alleged that private
respondent did not mention that she had previously filed a petition involving
the same issue and parties with the Election Officer of Muntinlupa whose office
according to petitioner, is considered a quasi-judicial agency of the
government.
On
June 4, 1996, respondent judge issued an order dismissing the Motion to Dismiss
and set the hearing of the case accordingly. The trial court interpreted the
provision of Sec. 6 of Comelec Resolution No. 2824 as referring to those cases
filed before the SK elections and do not cover those cases filed after the
election of candidates. If ruled that quo warranto proceedings fall under its
jurisdiction within the purview of Sec. 253, par. 2 of the Omnibus Election
Code, and that the failure of the Election Officer of Muntinlupa to act on the
complaint warranted the filing by the protestant Liberty Santos of a petition
for quo warranto with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa under the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ISSUE:
WON the Trial Court has jurisdiction over cases involving the eligibility of
candidates after the election of candidates, pursuant to the Omnibus Election
Code, Sec. 253, par. 2.
RULING:
Yes, pursuant to Sec. 253, par. 2 of
the Omnibus Election Code, the Trial Court has jurisdiction over cases
involving the eligibility of candidates after the election.
Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 28244
provides:
Qualifications of
Elective Members — An elective official of the SK must be:
(a) a registered
voter;
(b) a resident in the
barangay for at least one (1) year immediately prior to the elections; and
(c) able to read and
write Filipino, any Philippine language or dialect or English.
Cases involving the
eligibility or qualification of candidates shall be decided by the
city/municipal Election Officer (EO), whose decision shall be final.
On the other hand, Section 253 of the Omnibus
Election Code reads:
Petition for Quo
Warranto — Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay
officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Regional
Trial Court or Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court, respectively, within ten
days after the proclamation of the results of the election.
We hold that Section 253 of the Omnibus
Election Code applies, R.A. 7808, which took effect on September 2, 1994
provides that “the Omnibus Election Code shall govern the elections of the
Sangguniang Kabataan.” This means that the election of Sangguniang Kabataan
shall be governed by the following provisions of the OEC:
Sec. 252. Election
contest for barangay offices. — A sworn petition contesting the election of a
barangay officer shall be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial
court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
been voted for the same office, within ten days after the proclamation of the
results of the election. The trial court shall decide the election protest
within fifteen days after the filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or
metropolitan trial court may be appealed within ten days from receipt of a copy
thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional trial court which shall decide
the case within thirty days from its submission, and whose decisions shall be
final.
Sec. 253. Petition
for quo warranto. — Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a
sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.
It was pursuant to this provision of R.A.
7808 in relation to Arts. 252-253 of the OEC that in its Resolution No. 2824,
promulgated on February 6, 1996, the COMELEC provided in Section 49 as follows:
Finality of
Proclamation — The proclamation of the winning candidates shall be final.
However, the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts (MeTC/MTC/MCTC) shall have original jurisdiction over all election
protest cases, whose decision shall be final. The Commission en banc in
meritorious cases may entertain a petition for review of the decision of the
MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. An appeal bond
of P2,000.00 shall be required, which shall be refundable if the appeal is
found meritorious.
Thus, any contest relating to the election of
members of the Sangguniang Kabataan (including the chairman) — whether
pertaining to their eligibility or the manner of their election — is cognizable
by MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs. Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, which
provides that:
cases involving the
eligibility or qualification of candidates [of SK] shall be decided by the
city/municipal Election officer (EO) whose decision shall be final.
applies
only to proceedings before the election. This is evident from the use of the
word “candidates” in Section 6 and the phrase “winning candidates” in Section
49. The distinction is based on the principle that it is the proclamation which
marks off the jurisdiction of the courts from the jurisdiction of election
officials. Before proclamation, cases concerning eligibility of SK officers and
members are cognizable by the Election Officer or EO as he is called in Section
6. But after the election and proclamation, the same cases become quo warranto
cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs.
No comments:
Post a Comment