Concom Cases

8/12/2019 Concom Cases

1/32

G.R. No. 170093 April 29, 2009

JOSE PEPITO M. AMORES, M.D., Petitioner,vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, BOARD O TR!STEES O T"E L!NG CENTER O T"EP"ILIPPINES, #$ r%pr%$%&'%( )* "o&. MAN!EL M. DA+RIT, #&( ERNANDO A.MELENDRES, M.D., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Jose Pepito M. !ores"ss"ils the De#ision $ of the Court of ppe"ls in C %&.R. SP No. '()*$, d"ted Septe!+er -, ((4, "swell "s its Resolution d"ted Septe!+er (, ((5 whi#h denied re#onsider"tion. he "ss"iled De#ision"ffir!ed the O#to+er $4, ((- Resolution - of the Civil Servi#e Co!!ission whi#h, in turn, ordered

petitioner/s sep"r"tion fro! servi#e "s Deput0 Dire#tor for 1ospit"l Support Servi#es "t the 2un3Center of the Philippines on "##ount of his l"# of the ne#ess"r0 #ivil servi#e eli3i+ilit0.

ell est"+lished "re the f"#ts of the #"se.

Petitioner Jose Pepito M. !ores w"s the Deput0 Dire#tor for 1ospit"l Support Servi#es "t the 2un3Center of the Philippines 62CP7. 1is #ivil servi#e #"reer +e3"n in $)' when he w"s initi"ll0 en3"3ed"t the 2CP "s " resident ph0si#i"n. 4 In the #ourse of his servi#e, he h"d +een pro!oted to the position of Medi#"l Spe#i"list, 5 then to Dep"rt!ent M"n"3er ,8 "nd fin"ll0 to Deput0 Dire#tor. Dr. C"li9to :"ldiv"rw"s then the E9e#utive Dire#tor of the 2CP "nd when he retired fro! servi#e in $))), petitioner w"sdesi3n"ted "s offi#er%in%#h"r3e of the 2CP +0 the Dep"rt!ent of 1e"lth 6DO17 Se#ret"r0 l+ertoRo!u"lde;, Jr. *

Petitioner h"d t" en #h"r3e of the 2CP in the interi! th"t the DO1 sele#tion +o"rd w"s in the pro#ess

of sele#tin3 " new e9e#utive dire#tor. In the !e"nti!e, Dr. un?ustified "nd @uestion"+le "#ts> "sE9e#utive Dire#tor of the 2CP. In " nutshell, the s"id !"nifesto +oldl0 e9posed the "lle3ed "no!"lous#ir#u!st"n#es surroundin3 Melendres/ "ppoint!entA the re"ssi3n!ent of so!e of the !e!+ers of the

2CP personnel whi#h "!ounted to de!otion in their r"n "nd st"tusA the "no!"lies in the pro#ure!entof propert0 "nd suppliesA his "+usive #ondu#t in pu+li#l0 "##usin3 so!e of the do#tors of h"vin3#"used the fire th"t 3utted the #enter in M"0 $))'A in "##usin3 :"ldiv"r of h"vin3 entered into"no!"lous #ontr"#ts "nd ne3oti"tions with the DP 1 rel"tive to #ert"in pro?e#tsA "nd in pr"#ti#in3f"voritis! "nd nepotis!. he tenor of the !"nifesto even went "s f"r "s to +e deepl0 person"l "s itli ewise @uestioned Melendres/ fitness to "#t "s e9e#utive dire#tor on the 3round of his previous +rushwith su+st"n#e "+use "nd the f"#t th"t he #ould no lon3er eep his !"rri"3e fro! f"ilin3. $(

he seriousness of these "lle3"tions led the DO1 to #re"te "


2/32

priv"te pr"#ti#e of his profession durin3 the hours th"t he should +e en3"3in3 in pu+li# servi#e inviol"tion of the Civil Servi#e 2"w .$41avvphil.net

Petitioner w"s #"u3ht +0 surprise when, on u3ust *, (( , he re#eived " letter fro! the 2CP =o"rdof rustees infor!in3 hi! of his sep"r"tion fro! servi#e "s Deput0 Dire#tor effe#tive Septe!+er -(,

(( .$5 o the s"id letter w"s "tt"#hed " #op0 of the =o"rd/s Resolution $8 d"ted u3ust -, (( , prin#ip"ll0 dire#tin3 petitioner/s ter!in"tion fro! servi#e "fter #onsult"tion with the C"reer E9e#utiveServi#e =o"rd 6CES =o"rd7. $* Petitioner +rou3ht "n "ppe"l fro! the resolution to the Civil Servi#eCo!!ission 6CSC7. $'

Resolvin3 the "ppe"l, the CSC de#l"red th"t the 2CP =o"rd of rustees h"d properl0 "nd v"lidl0sep"r"ted petitioner fro! his post "s Deput0 Dire#tor. In its Resolution No. (-$(5(, $) the CSC de#linedto p"ss upon the #h"r3e of dishonest0 on the 3round of pre%!"turit0 "s the issue h"d not 0et +eenfin"ll0 deter!ined in " proper pro#eedin3 "nd the =o"rd h"d not 0et in f"#t !"de " definite findin3 of3uilt fro! whi#h petitioner !i3ht "s " !"tter of #ourse "ppe"l. ( 1owever, it pointed out th"t

petitioner/s sep"r"tion fro! servi#e w"s "n#hored on his l"# of " CES eli3i+ilit0 whi#h is re@uired forthe position of deput0 dire#tor "nd, "s su#h, he en?o0ed no se#urit0 in his tenure. $

Petitioner lod3ed "n ppe"l with the Court of ppe"ls. 1owever, it w"s dis!issed "nd CSCResolution No. (-$(5( w"s "ffir!ed. -

his present petition for review i!putes error to the Court of ppe"ls.


3/32

e +e3in with the pre#ept, fir!l0 est"+lished +0 l"w "nd ?urispruden#e, th"t " per!"nent "ppoint!entin the #ivil servi#e is issued to " person who h"s !et the re@uire!ents of the position to whi#h the"ppoint!ent is !"de in "##ord"n#e with l"w "nd the rules issued pursu"nt thereto. ' n "ppoint!ent is

per!"nent where the "ppointee !eets "ll the re@uire!ents for the position to whi#h he is +ein3"ppointed, in#ludin3 the "ppropri"te eli3i+ilit0 pres#ri+ed, "nd it is te!por"r0 where the "ppointee!eets "ll the re@uire!ents for the position e9#ept onl0 the "ppropri"te #ivil servi#e eli3i+ilit0. )

nder Se#tion * -( of the Civil Servi#e 2"w ,-$ positions in the #ivil servi#e "re #l"ssified into open#"reer positions, #losed #"reer positions "nd positions in the #"reer servi#e. In turn, positions in the#"reer servi#e "re tiered in three levels "s follows

SEC ION '. Classes of Positions in the Career Service . % 6$7 Cl"sses of positions in the #"reer servi#e"ppoint!ent to whi#h re@uires e9"!in"tions whi#h sh"ll +e 3rouped into three !"?or levels "s follows

6"7 he first level sh"ll in#lude the #leri#"l, tr"des, #r"fts "nd #ustodi"l servi#e positions whi#hinvolve non%profession"l or su+profession"l wor in " non%supervisor0 or supervisor0#"p"#it0 re@uirin3 less th"n four 0e"rs of #olle3i"te studiesA

6+7 he se#ond level sh"ll in#lude profession"l, te#hni#"l "nd s#ientifi# positions whi#hinvolve profession"l, te#hni#"l or s#ientifi# wor in " non%supervisor0 or supervisor0 #"p"#it0re@uirin3 "t le"st four 0e"rs of #olle3e wor up to the Division Chief levelA "nd

6#7 he third level sh"ll #over positions in the C"reer E9e#utive Servi#e.

ith p"rti#ul"r referen#e to positions in the #"reer e9e#utive servi#e 6CES7, the re@uisite #ivil servi#eeli3i+ilit0 is "#@uired upon p"ssin3 the CES e9"!in"tions "d!inistered +0 the CES =o"rd "nd thesu+se@uent #onfer!ent of su#h eli3i+ilit0 upon p"ssin3 the e9"!in"tions .- On#e " person "#@uireseli3i+ilit0, he either e"rns the st"tus of " per!"nent "ppointee to the CES position to whi#h he h"s

previousl0 +een "ppointed, or he +e#o!es @u"lified for " per!"nent "ppoint!ent to th"t position provided onl0 th"t he "lso possesses "ll the other @u"lifi#"tions for the position. -- eril0, it is #le"r th"tthe possession of the re@uired CES eli3i+ilit0 is th"t whi#h will !" e "n "ppoint!ent in the #"reere9e#utive servi#e " per!"nent one. Petitioner does not possess su#h eli3i+ilit0, however, it #"nnot +es"id th"t his "ppoint!ent to the position w"s per!"nent.

Indeed, the l"w per!its, on !"n0 o##"sions, the "ppoint!ent of non%CES eli3i+les to CES positions inthe 3overn!en t-4 in the "+sen#e of "ppropri"te eli3i+les "nd when there is ne#essit0 in the interest of

pu+li# servi#e to fill v"#"n#ies in the 3overn!ent .-5 =ut in "ll su#h #"ses, the "ppoint!ent is "t +est!erel0 te!por"r0 -8 "s it is s"id to +e #onditioned on the su+se@uent o+tention of the re@uired CESeli3i+ilit0. -* his rule, "##ordin3 to De 2eon v. Court of ppe"ls, -' Di!"0u3" v. =enedi#to, -) C"rin3"lv. Philippine Ch"rit0 Sweepst" es Offi#e, 4( "nd #h"#oso v. M"#"r"i3, 4$ is inv"ri"+le even thou3h the3iven "ppoint!ent !"0 h"ve +een desi3n"ted "s per!"nent +0 the "ppointin3 "uthorit0.

e now #o!e to "ddress the issue of whether petitioner/s sep"r"tion fro! servi#e viol"ted his ri3ht to

se#urit0 of tenure.

Se#urit0 of tenure in the #"reer e9e#utive servi#e, whi#h presupposes " per!"nent "ppoint!ent, t" es pl"#e upon p"ssin3 the CES e9"!in"tions "d!inistered +0 the CES =o"rd. It is th"t whi#h entitles thee9"!inee to #onfer!ent of CES eli3i+ilit0 "nd the in#lusion of his n"!e in the roster of CESeli3i+les .4 nder the rules "nd re3ul"tions pro!ul3"ted +0 the CES =o"rd, #onfer!ent of the CESeli3i+ilit0 is done +0 the CES =o"rd throu3h " for!"l +o"rd resolution "fter "n ev"lu"tion h"s +eendone of the e9"!inee/s perfor!"n#e in the four st"3es of the CES eli3i+ilit0 e9"!in"tions. pon#onfer!ent of CES eli3i+ilit0 "nd #o!pli"n#e with the other re@uire!ents pres#ri+ed +0 the =o"rd, "nin#u!+ent of " CES position !"0 @u"lif0 for "ppoint!ent to " CES r"n . ppoint!ent to " CES r"nis !"de +0 the President upon the =o"rd/s re#o!!end"tion. It is this pro#ess whi#h #o!pletes theoffi#i"l/s !e!+ership in the CES "nd #onfers on hi! se#urit0 of tenure in the CES .4- Petitioner doesnot see! to h"ve 3one throu3h this definitive pro#ess.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_170093_2009.html#fnt43


4/32

t this ?un#ture, wh"t #o!es un!ist" "+l0 #le"r is the f"#t th"t +e#"use petitioner l"# ed the properCES eli3i+ilit0 "nd therefore h"d not held the su+?e#t offi#e in " per!"nent #"p"#it0, there #ould noth"ve +een "n0 viol"tion of petitioner/s supposed ri3ht to se#urit0 of tenure in"s!u#h "s he h"d never

+een in possession of the s"id ri3ht "t le"st durin3 his tenure "s Deput0 Dire#tor for 1ospit"l SupportServi#es. 1en#e, no #h"llen3e !"0 +e offered "3"inst his sep"r"tion fro! offi#e even if it +e for no#"use "nd "t " !o!ent/s noti#e. 44 Not even his own self%servin3 #l"i! th"t he w"s #o!petent to

#ontinue servin3 "s Deput0 Dire#tor !"0 "#tu"ll0 "nd le3"ll0 3ive even the sli3htest se!+l"n#e of"uthorit0 to his thesis th"t he should re!"in in offi#e. =e th"t "s it !"0, it +e"rs e!ph"sis th"t, in "n0#"se, the !ere f"#t th"t "n e!plo0ee is " CES eli3i+le does not "uto!"ti#"ll0 oper"te to vest se#urit0 of tenure on the "ppointee in"s!u#h "s the se#urit0 of tenure of e!plo0ees in the #"reer e9e#utive servi#e,e9#ept first "nd se#ond%level e!plo0ees, pert"ins onl0 to r"n "nd not to the offi#e or position to whi#hthe0 !"0 +e "ppointed .45

nent the other issues r"ised in this petition, we find the s"!e to +e !erel0 petitioner/s l"st%dit#h"tte!pts, futile "s the0 "re, to re!"in in offi#e. Suffi#e it to s"0 th"t no further 3ood !"0 +e served inneedlessl0 e9poundin3 on the!.

ll told, we reiter"te the lon3%st"ndin3 rule th"t the !ere f"#t th"t " p"rti#ul"r position +elon3s to the#"reer servi#e does not "uto!"ti#"ll0 #onfer se#urit0 of tenure on its o##up"nt. Su#h ri3ht will h"ve todepend on the n"ture of his "ppoint!ent, whi#h in turn depends on his eli3i+ilit0 or l"# of it. personwho does not h"ve the re@uisite @u"lifi#"tions for the position #"nnot +e "ppointed to it in the first

pl"#e or, onl0 "s "n e9#eption to the rule, !"0 +e "ppointed to it in "n "#tin3 #"p"#it0 in the "+sen#e of"ppropri"te eli3i+les .48

1ERE


5/32

#onsider"+le e"rnin3s for "lle3edl0 wor in3 in hu!"nl0 i!possi+le #onditions 4 hours str"i3ht d"il0,for three #onse#utive wee s. 8

In support of their #o!pl"int, Dr. Pi" "nd ="utist" su+!itted the followin3 do#u!ent"r0 eviden#e

$. Spe#i"l Order No. $((4, s. ((8A

. Spe#i"l Order No. ()8(, s. ((8A

-. D"il0 ti!e re#ords of S"turd"0 "nd Overni3ht Servi#es of lfonsoA

4. P P Per!%O overni3ht M"0 ((8 p"0roll re3isterA

5. Gero9 #op0 of #he# no. $8 '-- d"ted M"0 -$, ((8A

8. Su!!"r0 of lfonso/s S"turd"0, overni3ht "nd overti!e s#heduleA

*. Co!put"tion of the nu!+er of hours, d"0s "nd wee s th"t lfonso "lle3edl0 servedA "nd

'. E9pl"n"tion of offi#i"l ti!e, ni3ht servi#e, S"turd"0 overti!e "nd overni3ht servi#esrendered +0 lfonso for the !onth of M"0 .*

On u3ust $(, ((8, the Offi#e of 2e3"l ff"irs 6O2 7 of the CSC issued "n order dire#tin3 lfonso tosu+!it his #ounter%"ffid"vitH#o!!ent within three 6-7 d"0s fro! re#eipt thereof.

In his Counter% ffid"vit ' d"ted u3ust -(, ((8, respondent "verred th"t he onl0 rendered overni3htwor on M"0 $*, $), , 4, 8, ) "nd -$, ((8. 1e e9pl"ined th"t his d"il0 ti!e re#ord e9pli#itl0indi#"tes th"t it #overs overni3ht servi#es pursu"nt to S.O. No. $((4, series of ((8, "nd th"t "n entr0su#h "s >D"0 $*, "rriv"l ' (( PMA D"0 $', dep"rture ' (( M> #onnoted onl0 " d"0 of overni3ht wor"nd not #ontinuous two 6 7 d"0s of rendition of servi#es. )

he CSC, however, found lfonso/s e9pl"n"tion w"ntin3. On O#to+er 5, ((8, it issued Resolution No. (8$' $ for!"ll0 #h"r3in3 lfonso with 3r"ve !is#ondu#t "nd #ondu#t pre?udi#i"l to the +estinterest of the Servi#e, "nd i!posin3 " )(%d"0 preventive suspension "3"inst hi! .$(

33rieved, respondent filed "n o!ni+us !otion for re#onsider"tion of the preventive suspension order"nd re@uested " #h"n3e of venue $$ fro! the CSC%Centr"l Offi#e to the CSC%N"tion"l C"pit"l Re3ion6CSC%NCR7. In the !otion, he "r3ued th"t it is the CSC%NCR re3ion"l offi#e th"t h"s ?urisdi#tion overthe !"tter pursu"nt to Se#tion 8 of CSC Resolution No. ))%$)-8, "nd th"t to hold otherwise !"0deprive hi! of his ri3ht to "ppe"l. $ he !otion w"s denied. $-

nd"unted, lfonso filed "nother !otion for re#onsider"tion on Nove!+er (, ((8, "##o!p"nied +0 "!otion to "d!it his supple!ent"l "nswer. $4 his ti!e, however, respondent "r3ued th"t the CSC h"d no

?urisdi#tion to he"r "nd de#ide the "d!inistr"tive #"se filed "3"inst hi!. ##ordin3 to hi!, it is the P P=o"rd of Re3ents th"t h"s the e9#lusive "uthorit0 to "ppoint "nd re!ove P P e!plo0ees pursu"nt tothe provisions of R. . No. ' ) $5 in rel"tion to R. . No. 48*( .$8

ithout rulin3 on the !otion, ssist"nt Co!!issioner tt0. ni#i" M"r"si3"n%de 2i!", he"d of CSC% NCR, issued "n Order $* d"ted De#e!+er $$, ((8 dire#tin3 the Offi#e of the President of P P toi!ple!ent the preventive suspension order "3"inst respondent. $'

Diss"tisfied, respondent sou3ht relief +efore the C vi" " petition for #ertior"ri "nd prohi+ition.

On M"0 $, ((*, the C rendered " De#ision $) in f"vor of lfonso. he pertinent portion of the

de#ision de#l"res
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt19


6/32

ppl0in3 the fore3oin3 provisions, it "ppe"rs th"t the CSC !"0 t" e #o3ni;"n#e of "n "d!inistr"tive#"se in two w"0s 6$7 throu3h " #o!pl"int filed +0 " priv"te #iti;en "3"inst " 3overn!ent offi#i"l ore!plo0eeA "nd 6 7 "ppe"led #"ses fro! the de#isions rendered +0 Se#ret"ries or he"ds of "3en#ies,instru!ent"lities, provin#es, #ities "nd !uni#ip"lities in #"ses filed "3"inst offi#ers "nd e!plo0eesunder their ?urisdi#tion.

Indisput"+l0, the persons who filed the "ffid"vit%#o!pl"int "3"inst petitioner held positions in "nd wereunder the e!plo0 of P P. 1en#e, the0 #"nnot +e #onsidered "s priv"te #iti;ens in the #onte!pl"tion ofthe s"id provision. It is li ewise undisputed th"t the su+?e#t CSC resolutions were not rendered in thee9er#ise of its power to review or its "ppell"te ?urisdi#tion +ut w"s "n ordin"r0 "d!inistr"tive #"se.1en#e, the present #"se f"lls short of the re@uire!ent th"t would otherwise h"ve ?ustified the CSC/si!!edi"te e9er#ise of its ?urisdi#tion over the "d!inistr"tive #"se "3"inst petitioner.

Even "ssu!in3 th"t the CSC !"0 dire#tl0 entert"in the #o!pl"ints filed with it, the do#trine ofe9h"ustion of "d!inistr"tive re!edies still prevents it fro! entert"inin3 the present "d!inistr"tive#"se. If " re!ed0 within the "d!inistr"tive !"#hiner0 #"n still +e h"d +0 3ivin3 the "d!inistr"tiveoffi#er #on#erned ever0 opportunit0 to de#ide on the !"tter th"t #o!es within his ?urisdi#tion, thensu#h re!ed0 should +e priorl0 e9h"usted.

he #ir#u!st"n#es in this #"se do not ?ustif0 the disre3"rd of the do#trine. 1en#e, the "d!inistr"tive#o!pl"int should h"ve +een lod3ed with the P P +o"rd of re3ents.

9 9 9

he C r"tio#in"ted th"t sin#e Presidenti"l De#ree 6P.D.7 No. $-4$, the l"w #re"tin3 P P, is the spe#i"ll"w 3overnin3 P P, then it is the =o"rd of Re3ents 6=OR7 th"t should #"rr0 out the duties of theinvesti3"tin3 #o!!ittee "nd h"s the proper "uthorit0 to dis#ipline P P personnel #oroll"r0 to the=OR/s 3ener"l powers of "d!inistr"tion. ( ##ordin3 to the C , the power of the =OR to hire #"rrieswith it the #orrespondin3 power to dis#ipline P P personnel pursu"nt to Se#tion *6#7 of P.D.$-4$, towit

Se#tion *. he =o"rd of Re3ents sh"ll h"ve the followin3 powers "nd duties in "ddition to his 3ener"l powers of "d!inistr"tion "nd the e9er#ise of "ll the powers of " #orpor"tion "s provided in Se#tion $-of #t Nu!+ered fourteen hundred fift0%nine "s "!ended, otherwise nown "s the PhilippineCorpor"tion 2"w

9 9 9 9

6#7 o "ppoint, on the re#o!!end"tion of the President of the niversit0, professors, instru#tors,le#turers "nd other !e!+ers of the f"#ult0, "nd other offi#i"ls "nd e!plo0ees of the niversit0A to fi9their #o!pens"tion, hours of servi#e, "nd su#h, other duties "nd #onditions "s it !"0 dee! proper, "n0other provisions of the l"w to the #ontr"r0 notwithst"ndin3A to 3r"nt to the! in his dis#retion, le"ve of"+sen#e under su#h re3ul"tions "s it !"0 pro!ul3"te, "n0 other #onditions of the l"w to the #ontr"r0

notwithst"ndin3, "nd to re!ove the! for #"use "fter "n investi3"tion "nd he"rin3 sh"ll h"ve +een h"dA

9 9 9

his provision in the P P Ch"rter is su+st"nti"ll0 in "##ord with Se#tion 46h7 of R. . ' ) ,

Se#tion 4. Powers "nd Duties of &overnin3 =o"rds. K he 3overnin3 +o"rd sh"ll h"ve the followin3spe#ifi# powers "nd duties in "ddition to its 3ener"l powers of "d!inistr"tion "nd the e9er#ise of "ll the

powers 3r"nted to the +o"rd of dire#tors of " #orpor"tion under Se#tion -8 of ="t"s P"!+"ns" =l3. 8',otherwise nown "s the Corpor"tion Code of the Philippines

9 9 9 9
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt20


7/32

6h7 to fi9 "nd "d?ust s"l"ries of f"#ult0 !e!+ers "nd "d!inistr"tive offi#i"ls "nd e!plo0ees su+?e#t tothe provisions of the revised #o!pens"tion "nd #l"ssifi#"tion s0ste! "nd other pertinent +ud3et "nd#o!pens"tion l"ws 3overnin3 hours of servi#e, "nd su#h other duties "nd #onditions "s it !"0 dee!

properA to 3r"nt the!, "t its dis#retion, le"ves of "+sen#e under su#h re3ul"tions "s it !"0 pro!ul3"te,"n0 provisions of e9istin3 l"w to the #ontr"r0 notwithst"ndin3A "nd to re!ove the! for #"use in"##ord"n#e with the re@uire!ents of due pro#ess of l"w.

&iven the fore3oin3 "nte#edents, the pivot"l issue we h"ve to resolve is whether the CSC h"s ?urisdi#tion to he"r "nd de#ide the #o!pl"int filed "3"inst lfonso.

e find in f"vor of petitioner.

Se#tion 6$7 "nd Se#tion -, rti#le IG%= of our Constitution, "re #le"r, "s the0 provide th"t

Se#. . 6$7 he #ivil servi#e e!+r"#es "ll +r"n#hes, su+divisions, instru!ent"lities, "nd "3en#ies of the&overn!ent, in#ludin3 3overn!ent%owned or #ontrolled #orpor"tions with ori3in"l #h"rters.

Se#. -. he Civil Servi#e Co!!ission, "s the #entr"l personnel "3en#0 of the &overn!ent, sh"llest"+lish " #"reer servi#e "nd "dopt !e"sures to pro!ote !or"le, effi#ien#0, inte3rit0, responsiveness,

pro3ressiveness, "nd #ourtes0 in the #ivil servi#e. It sh"ll stren3then the !erit "nd rew"rds s0ste!,inte3r"te "ll hu!"n resour#es develop!ent pro3r"!s for "ll levels "nd r"n s, "nd institution"li;e "!"n"3e!ent #li!"te #ondu#ive to pu+li# "##ount"+ilit0. It sh"ll su+!it to the President "nd theCon3ress "n "nnu"l report on its personnel pro3r"!s.

s the #entr"l personnel "3en#0 of the 3overn!ent, $ the CSC h"s ?urisdi#tion to supervise the perfor!"n#e of "nd dis#ipline, if need +e, "ll 3overn!ent e!plo0ees, in#ludin3 those e!plo0ed in3overn!ent%owned or #ontrolled #orpor"tions with ori3in"l #h"rters su#h "s P P. ##ordin3l0, "ll P Poffi#ers "nd e!plo0ees, whether the0 +e #l"ssified "s te"#hers or professors pursu"nt to #ert"in

provisions of l"w, "re dee!ed, first "nd fore!ost, #ivil serv"nts "##ount"+le to the people "nd"nswer"+le to the CSC in #"ses of #o!pl"ints lod3ed +0 " #iti;en "3"inst the! "s pu+li# serv"nts.

d!ittedl0, the CSC h"s "ppell"te ?urisdi#tion over dis#iplin"r0 #"ses de#ided +0 3overn!entdep"rt!ents, "3en#ies "nd instru!ent"lities. 1owever, " #o!pl"int !"0 +e filed dire#tl0 with the CSC,"nd the Co!!ission h"s the "uthorit0 to he"r "nd de#ide the #"se, "lthou3h it !"0 opt to deputi;e "dep"rt!ent or "n "3en#0 to #ondu#t the investi3"tion. Spe#ifi#"ll0, Se#tions )6?7 "nd -*6"7 of P.D. '(*,otherwise nown "s the Civil Servi#e 2"w of $)*5, provide

SEC ION ). Powers "nd


8/32

it !"0, we #"nnot interpret the #re"tion of su#h +odies nor the p"ss"3e of l"ws su#h "s K R. . Nos.' ) "nd 48*( "llowin3 for the #re"tion of su#h dis#iplin"r0 +odies K "s h"vin3 divested the CSC of itsinherent power to supervise "nd dis#ipline 3overn!ent e!plo0ees, in#ludin3 those in the "#"de!e. ohold otherwise would not onl0 ne3"te the ver0 purpose for whi#h the CSC w"s est"+lished, i.e. to instill

profession"lis!, inte3rit0, "nd "##ount"+ilit0 in our #ivil servi#e, +ut would "lso i!pliedl0 "!end theConstitution itself.

In Offi#e of the O!+uds!"n v. M"sin3, - we e9pl"ined th"t it is error to #ontend th"t R. . No. 48*(#onferred e9#lusive dis#iplin"r0 "uthorit0 on the Dep"rt!ent of Edu#"tion, Culture "nd Sports 6DECS,now Dep"rt!ent of Edu#"tion or DepEd7 over pu+li# s#hool te"#hers "nd to h"ve pres#ri+ed e9#lusive

pro#edure in "d!inistr"tive investi3"tions involvin3 the!. 4 1en#e, it is e@u"ll0 erroneous forrespondent to "r3ue th"t the P P Ch"rter "nd R. . No. ' ) in rel"tion to R. . 48*( #onfer upon the=OR of P P e9#lusive ?urisdi#tion to he"r dis#iplin"r0 #"ses "3"inst universit0 professors "nd

personnel.

In Civil Servi#e Co!!ission v. So?or, 5 "n "d!inistr"tive #"se w"s filed "3"inst " st"te universit0 president. here, we stru# down the "r3u!ent th"t the =OR h"s e9#lusive ?urisdi#tion to he"r "ndde#ide "n "d!inistr"tive #"se filed "3"inst the respondent. e s"id

In li3ht of the other provisions of R. . No. ) )), respondent/s "r3u!ent th"t the =OR h"s e9#lusive power to re!ove its universit0 offi#i"ls !ust f"il. Se#tion * of R. . No. ) )) st"tes th"t the power tore!ove f"#ult0 !e!+ers, e!plo0ees, "nd offi#i"ls of the universit0 is 3r"nted to the =OR >in "dditionto its 3ener"l powers of "d!inistr"tion.> his provision is essenti"ll0 " reprodu#tion of Se#tion 4 of its

prede#essor, R. . No. ' ) , de!onstr"tin3 th"t the intent of the l"w!" ers did not #h"n3e even withthe en"#t!ent of the new l"w. 9 9 9

9 9 9 9

eril0, the =OR of NORS h"s the sole power of "d!inistr"tion over the universit0. =ut this power isnot e9#lusive in the !"tter of dis#iplinin3 "nd re!ovin3 its e!plo0ee "nd offi#i"ls.

lthou3h the =OR of NORS is 3iven the spe#ifi# power under R. . No. ) )) to dis#ipline itse!plo0ees "nd offi#i"ls, there is no showin3 th"t su#h power is e9#lusive. hen the l"w +estows upon" 3overn!ent +od0 the ?urisdi#tion to he"r "nd de#ide #"ses involvin3 spe#ifi# !"tters, it is to +e

presu!ed th"t su#h ?urisdi#tion is e9#lusive unless it +e proved th"t "nother +od0 is li ewise vestedwith the s"!e ?urisdi#tion, in whi#h #"se, +oth +odies h"ve #on#urrent ?urisdi#tion over the !"tter. 8 6E!ph"sis supplied7

=ut it is not onl0 for this re"son th"t lfonso/s "r3u!ent !ust f"il. E@u"ll0 si3nifi#"nt is the f"#t th"t heh"d "lre"d0 su+!itted hi!self to the ?urisdi#tion of the CSC when he filed his #ounter%"ffid"vit * "ndhis !otion for re#onsider"tion "nd re@uested for " #h"n3e of venue, not fro! the CSC to the =OR ofP P, +ut fro! the CSC%Centr"l Offi#e to the CSC%NCR . ' It w"s onl0 when his !otion w"s denied th"the suddenl0 h"d " #h"n3e of he"rt "nd r"ised the @uestion of proper ?urisdi#tion . ) his #"nnot +e

"llowed +e#"use it would viol"te the do#trine of res ?udi#"t", " le3"l prin#iple th"t is "ppli#"+le to"d!inistr"tive #"ses "s well. -( t the ver0 le"st, respondent/s "#tive p"rti#ip"tion in the pro#eedin3s +0see in3 "ffir!"tive relief +efore the CSC "lre"d0 +"rs hi! fro! i!pu3nin3 the Co!!ission/s "uthorit0under the prin#iple of estoppel +0 l"#hes. -$

In this #"se, the #o!pl"int%"ffid"vits were filed +0 two P P e!plo0ees. hese #o!pl"ints were notlod3ed +efore the dis#iplin"r0 tri+un"l of P P, +ut were inste"d filed +efore the CSC, with "ver!entsdet"ilin3 respondent/s "lle3ed viol"tion of #ivil servi#e l"ws, rules "nd re3ul"tions. fter " f"#t%findin3investi3"tion, the Co!!ission found th"t " pri!" f"#ie #"se e9isted "3"inst lfonso, pro!ptin3 theCo!!ission to file " for!"l #h"r3e "3"inst the l"tter .- eril0, sin#e the #o!pl"ints were filed dire#tl0with the CSC, "nd the CSC h"s opted to "ssu!e ?urisdi#tion over the #o!pl"int, the CSC/s e9er#ise of

?urisdi#tion sh"ll +e to the e9#lusion of other tri+un"ls e9er#isin3 #on#urrent ?urisdi#tion. o repe"t, it!"0, however, #hoose to deputi;e "n0 dep"rt!ent or "3en#0 or offi#i"l or 3roup of offi#i"ls su#h "s the

=OR of P P to #ondu#t the investi3"tion, or to dele3"te the investi3"tion to the proper re3ion"loffi#e. -- =ut the s"!e is !erel0 per!issive "nd not !"nd"tor0 upon the Co!!ission.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_179452_2009.html#fnt33


9/32

e li ewise "ffir! the order of preventive suspension issued +0 the CSC%NCR "3"inst respondent.

here "re two inds of preventive suspension of 3overn!ent e!plo0ees #h"r3ed with offenses punish"+le +0 re!ov"l or suspension, vi; 6$7 preventive suspension pendin3 investi3"tionA "nd 6 7 preventive suspension pendin3 "ppe"l if the pen"lt0 i!posed +0 the dis#iplinin3 "uthorit0 is suspensionor dis!iss"l "nd, "fter review, the respondent is e9oner"ted. Preventive suspension pendin3investi3"tion is not " pen"lt0. It is " !e"sure intended to en"+le the dis#iplinin3 "uthorit0 to investi3"te#h"r3es "3"inst respondent +0 preventin3 the l"tter fro! inti!id"tin3 or in "n0 w"0 influen#in3witnesses "3"inst hi!. If the investi3"tion is not finished "nd " de#ision is not rendered within th"t

period, the suspension will +e lifted "nd the respondent will "uto!"ti#"ll0 +e reinst"ted. If "fterinvesti3"tion, respondent is found inno#ent of the #h"r3es "nd is e9oner"ted, he should +e reinst"ted. -4

he first ind, su+?e#t of the CSC Order "3"inst the respondent, is "ppropri"tel0 #overed +0 Se#tions5$ "nd 5 of the Revised d!inistr"tive Code of $)'* 6E9e#utive Order No. ) 7 whi#h provide

SEC. 5$. Preventive Suspension . % he proper dis#iplinin3 "uthorit0 !"0 preventivel0 suspend "n0su+ordin"te offi#er or e!plo0ee under his "uthorit0 pendin3 "n investi3"tion, if the #h"r3e "3"inst su#hoffi#er or e!plo0ee involves dishonest0, oppression or 3r"ve !is#ondu#t, or ne3le#t in the perfor!"n#e

of dut0, or if there "re re"sons to +elieve th"t the respondent is 3uilt0 of #h"r3es whi#h would w"rr"nthis re!ov"l fro! the servi#e. 1avvphi1

SEC. 5 . Lifting of Preventive Suspension. Pending Administrative Investigation . % hen the"d!inistr"tive #"se "3"inst the offi#er or e!plo0ee under preventive suspension is not fin"ll0 de#ided

+0 the dis#iplinin3 "uthorit0 within the period of ninet0 6)(7 d"0s "fter the d"te of suspension of therespondent who is not " presidenti"l "ppointee, the respondent sh"ll +e "uto!"ti#"ll0 reinst"ted in theservi#e Provided , h"t when the del"0 in the disposition of the #"se is due to the f"ult, ne3li3en#e or

petition of the respondent, the period of del"0 sh"ll not +e #ounted in #o!putin3 the period ofsuspension herein provided. 1avvphi1

Respondent w"s #h"r3ed with 3r"ve !is#ondu#t "nd #ondu#t pre?udi#i"l to the +est interest of theservi#e. person #h"r3ed with 3r"ve !is#ondu#t is put on noti#e th"t he st"nds "##used of !is#ondu#t#oupled with "n0 of the ele!ents of #orruption or willful intent to viol"te the l"w or est"+lished rules .-5 Me"nwhile, #ondu#t pre?udi#i"l to the +est interest of the servi#e is #l"ssified "s " 3r"ve offense with "#orrespondin3 pen"lt0 of suspension for si9 687 !onths "nd one 6$7 d"0 to one 6$7 0e"r for the firstoffense, "nd the pen"lt0 of dis!iss"l for the se#ond offense. -8

In "ddition to the 3r"vit0 of the #h"r3es "3"inst lfonso, "nd e@u"ll0 relev"nt, is the opportunit0"v"il"+le to hi! to use his position "s Dire#tor of the 1u!"n Resour#es M"n"3e!ent Dep"rt!ent ofthe universit0 to e9ert undue influen#e or pressure on the potenti"l witnesses th"t the #o!pl"in"nts !"0

produ#e, or to t"!per with the do#u!ent"r0 eviden#e th"t !"0 +e used "3"inst hi!. Preventivesuspension is, therefore, ne#ess"r0 so th"t respondent/s deli#"te 0et powerful position in the universit0!"0 not +e used to #o!pro!ise the inte3rit0 "nd i!p"rti"lit0 of the entire pro#eedin3s.

1ERE


10/32

Bi'o/O&o& $. "o&. %r&(%

&R No. $-)'$-


11/32

ele#tion pro!ptin3 Lue?"no to file " post pro#l"!"tion protest with the =o"rd of Ele#tion Supervisors6=ES7, whi#h w"s de#ided "3"inst hi! on u3ust 5, $))*.

Not s"tisfied with the de#ision of the =ES, Lue?"no filed " Petition for Review of the de#ision of the=ES with the Re3ion"l ri"l Court of P"l"w"n "nd Puerto Prin#es" Cit0 6R C7. On pril 8, $))),Onon filed " !otion to dis!iss the Petition for Review r"isin3 the issue of ?urisdi#tion. Onon #l"i!edth"t the R C h"d no ?urisdi#tion to review the de#isions rendered +0 the =ES in "n0 post pro#l"!"tionele#tor"l protest in #onne#tion with the $))* 2i3" n3 !3" ="r"n3"0 ele#tion of offi#ers "nd dire#tors.In his !otion to dis!iss, Onon #l"i!ed th"t the Supple!ent"l &uidelines for the $))* 2i3" n3 !3"="r"n3"0 ele#tion issued +0 the DI2& on u3ust $$, $))* in its Me!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r No. )*%$)-,

providin3 for review of de#isions or resolutions of the =ES +0 the re3ul"r #ourts of l"w is "n ultra vires"#t "nd is void for +ein3 issued without or in e9#ess of ?urisdi#tion, "s its issu"n#e is not " !ere "#t ofsupervision +ut r"ther "n e9er#ise of #ontrol over the 2i3"/s intern"l or3"ni;"tion.

On June , $))), the R C denied Onon/s !otion to dis!iss. In its order, the R C r"tio#in"ted th"t theSe#ret"r0 of the Dep"rt!ent of Interior "nd 2o#"l &overn!ent ii is vested with the power toest"+lish "nd pres#ri+e rules, re3ul"tions "nd other issu"n#es "nd i!ple!entin3 l"ws on the 3ener"lsupervision of lo#"l 3overn!ent units "nd the pro!otion of lo#"l "utono!0 "nd !onitor #o!pli"n#ethereof +0 s"id units. iii - he R C "dded th"t DI2& Cir#ul"r No. )*%$)- w"s issued +0 the DI2&Se#ret"r0 pursu"nt to his rule%!" in3 power "s provided for under Se#tion *, Ch"pter II, =oo I ofthe d!inistr"tive Code. iv 4 Conse@uentl0, the R C ruled th"t it h"d ?urisdi#tion over the petition forreview filed +0 Lue?"d". v 5

Motion for re#onsider"tion of the "fores"id Order w"s denied vi 8 pro!ptin3 the petitioner to file the present petition wherein the followin3 issues "re r"ised

A. "ET"ER OR NOT T"E !ESTIONED PROVISION IN MEMORAND!MCIRC!LAR 97/193 AS ISS!ED B+ T"E DILG SECRETAR+ IN E4CESS O "ISA!T"ORIT+.

B. "ET"ER OR NOT T"E RESPONDENT J!DGE COMMITTED GRAVE AB!SE ODISCRETION IN ISS!ING T"E !ESTIONED ORDERS .vii *

In support of his petition, Onon "r3ues th"t the Supple!ent"l &uidelines for the $))* S0n#hroni;edEle#tion of the Provin#i"l "nd Metropolit"n Ch"pters "nd for the Ele#tion of the N"tion"l Ch"pter ofthe 2i3" n3 !3" ="r"n3"0 #ontr"di#ts the I!ple!entin3 Rules "nd &uidelines for the $))* &ener"lEle#tions of the 2i3" n3 !3" ="r"n3"0 Offi#ers "nd Dire#tors "nd is therefore inv"lid. Onon "lle3esth"t the 2i3" n3 !3" ="r"n3"0 62I& 7 is not " lo#"l 3overn!ent unit #onsiderin3 th"t " lo#"l3overn!ent unit !ust h"ve its own sour#e of in#o!e, " #ert"in nu!+er of popul"tion, "nd " spe#ifi#l"nd "re" in order to e9ist or +e #re"ted "s su#h. Conse@uentl0, the DI2& onl0 h"s " li!itedsupervisor0 "uthorit0 over the 2I& . Moreover, Onon "r3ues th"t even if the DI2& h"s supervisor0"uthorit0 over the 2I& , the "#t of the DI2& in issuin3 Me!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r No. )*%$)- or thesupple!ent"l rules "nd 3uidelines for the #ondu#t of the $))* 2I& ele#tions h"d the effe#t of!odif0in3, "lterin3 "nd nullif0in3 the rules pres#ri+ed +0 the N"tion"l 2i3" =o"rd. Onon posits th"tthe issu"n#e of s"id 3uidelines "llowin3 "n "ppe"l of the de#ision of the =ES to the re3ul"r #ourtsr"ther th"n to the N"tion"l 2i3" =o"rd is no lon3er "n e9er#ise of supervision +ut "n e9er#ise of#ontrol. viii '

In his #o!!ent to the petition, priv"te respondent Lue?"no "r3ues th"t the Se#ret"r0 of the DI2& h"s#o!petent "uthorit0 to issue rules "nd re3ul"tions li e Me!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r No. )*%')-. heSe#ret"r0 of DI2&/s rule%!" in3 power is #onferred +0 the d!inistr"tive Code. Considerin3 th"t theMe!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r w"s issued pursu"nt to his rule !" in3 power, Lue?"no insists th"t the lower#ourt did not #o!!it "n0 reversi+le error when it denied Onon/s !otion to dis!iss. i9 )

On the other h"nd, the pu+li# respondent represented herein +0 the Soli#itor &ener"l, filed " sep"r"teM"nifest"tion "nd Motion in 2ieu of Co!!ent "3reein3 with the position of petitioner Onon. he

Soli#itor &ener"l "ffir!s Onon/s #l"i! th"t in issuin3 the @uestioned Me!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r, theSe#ret"r0 of the DI2& effe#tivel0 "!ended the rules "nd 3uidelines pro!ul3"ted +0 N"tion"l 2i3"


12/32

=o"rd. his "#t w"s no lon3er " !ere "#t of supervision +ut one of #ontrol. he Soli#itor &ener"lsu+!its th"t the R C #o!!itted 3r"ve "+use of dis#retion in not dis!issin3 the petition for review ofthe =ES de#ision filed +efore it for f"ilure of the petitioner to e9h"ust the ri3htful re!ed0 whi#h w"s to"ppe"l to the N"tion"l 2i3" =o"rd. 9 $(

On O#to+er *, $))), this Court denied petitioner Onon/s !otion for the issu"n#e of restr"inin3 orderfor l"# of !erit.

fter " #"reful review of the #"se, we sust"in the position of the petitioner.

he resolution of the present #ontrovers0 re@uires "n e9"!in"tion of the @uestioned provision ofMe!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r No. )*%$)- "nd the I!ple!entin3 Rules "nd &uidelines for the $))* &ener"lEle#tions of the 2i3" n3 !3" ="r"n3"0 Offi#ers "nd Dire#tors 6& IDE2INES7. he !e!or"ndu!#ir#ul"r re"ds, insof"r "s pertinent, "s follows

n0 post%pro#l"!"tion protest !ust +e filed with the =ES within twent0%four 6 47 hours fro! the#losin3 of the ele#tion. he =ES sh"ll de#ide the s"!e within fort0%ei3ht 64'7 hours fro! re#eiptthereof. he de#ision of the =ES sh"ll +e fin"l "nd i!!edi"tel0 e9e#utor0 without prejudice to the

filing of a Petition for eview with the regular courts of law.9i

$$ 6e!ph"sis supplied7

On the other h"nd, the & IDE2INES provides th"t the =ES sh"ll h"ve the followin3 "!on3 its duties

o resolve "n0 post%pro#l"!"tion ele#tor"l protest whi#h !ust +e su+!itted in writin3 to this =o"rdwithin twent0%four 6 47 hours fro! the #lose of ele#tionA provided s"id =o"rd sh"ll render its de#isionwithin fort0%ei3ht 64'7 hours fro! re#eipt hereofA "nd provided further th"t the de#ision !ust +esu+!itted to the N"tion"l 2i3" 1e"d@u"rters within twent0%four 6 47 hours fro! the s"id de#ision. hede#ision of the =o"rd of Ele#tion Supervisors in this respe#t shall !e su!ject to review !" the #ational

Liga $oard the decision of which shall !e final and e%ecutor" . 9ii $ 6e!ph"sis supplied7

Me!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r No. )*%$)- w"s issued +0 the DI2& Se#ret"r0 pursu"nt to the power of 3ener"l

supervision of the President over "ll lo#"l 3overn!ent units whi#h w"s dele3"ted to the DI2&Se#ret"r0 +0 virtue of d!inistr"tive Order No. 8* d"ted


13/32

offi#i"ls. he 2o#"l &overn!ent Code 99i $ defines the li3" n3 !3" +"r"n3"0 "s "n or3"ni;"tion of "ll +"r"n3"0s for the pri!"r0 purpose of deter!inin3 the represent"tion of the li3" in the s"n33uni"ns, "ndfor ventil"tin3, "rti#ul"tin3 "nd #r0st"lli;in3 issues "ffe#tin3 +"r"n3"0 3overn!ent "d!inistr"tion "ndse#urin3, throu3h proper "nd le3"l !e"ns, solutions thereto. 99ii he li3" sh"ll h"ve #h"pters "t the!uni#ip"l, #it0, provin#i"l "nd !etropolit"n politi#"l su+division levels. he !uni#ip"l "nd #it0#h"pters of the li3" sh"ll +e #o!posed of the +"r"n3"0 represent"tives of the !uni#ip"l "nd #it0

+"r"n3"0s respe#tivel0. he dul0 ele#ted presidents of the #o!ponent !uni#ip"l "nd #it0 #h"pters sh"ll#onstitute the provin#i"l #h"pter or the !etropolit"n politi#"l su+division #h"pter. he dul0 ele#ted

presidents of hi3hl0 ur+"ni;ed #ities, provin#i"l #h"pters, the Metropolit"n M"nil" #h"pter "nd!etropolit"n politi#"l su+division #h"pters sh"ll #onstitute the N"tion"l 2i3" n3 !3" ="r"n3"0. 99iii -

he li3" "t the !uni#ip"l, #it0, provin#i"l, !etropolit"n politi#"l su+division, "nd n"tion"l levelsdire#tl0 ele#t " president, " vi#e%president "nd five 657 !e!+ers of the +o"rd of dire#tors. he +o"rdsh"ll "ppoint its se#ret"r0 "nd tre"surer "nd #re"te su#h other positions "s it !"0 dee! ne#ess"r0 for the!"n"3e!ent of the #h"pter. 99iv 4

he li3"s "re pri!"ril0 3overned +0 the provisions of the 2o#"l &overn!ent Code. 99v 5 1owever,their respe#tive #onstitution "nd +0%l"ws sh"ll 3overn "ll other !"tters "ffe#tin3 the intern"lor3"ni;"tion of the li3" not otherwise provided for in the 2o#"l &overn!ent Code provided th"t the#onstitution "nd +0%l"ws sh"ll +e suppletor0 to the provisions of =oo III, itle I of the 2o#"l&overn!ent Code "nd sh"ll "lw"0s #onfor! to the provisions of the Constitution "nd e9istin3 l"ws. 99vi

8

1"vin3 in !ind the fore3oin3 prin#iples, we rule th"t Me!or"ndu! Cir#ul"r No. )*%$)- of the DI2&insof"r "s it "uthori;es the filin3 " Petition for Review of the de#ision of the =ES with the re3ul"r#ourts in " post pro#l"!"tion ele#tor"l protest is of dou+tful #onstitution"lit0. e "3ree with +oth the

petitioner "nd the Soli#itor &ener"l th"t in "uthori;in3 the filin3 of the petition for review of thede#ision of the =ES with the re3ul"r #ourts, the DI2& Se#ret"r0 in effe#t "!ended "nd !odified the& IDE2INES pro!ul3"ted +0 the N"tion"l 2i3" =o"rd "nd "dopted +0 the 2I& whi#h provides th"tthe de#ision of the =ES sh"ll +e su+?e#t to review +0 the N"tion"l 2i3" =o"rd. he "!end!ent of the& IDE2INES is !ore th"n "n e9er#ise of the power of supervision +ut is "n e9er#ise of the power of

#ontrol, whi#h the President does not h"ve over the 2I& . lthou3h the DI2& is 3iven the power to pres#ri+e rules, re3ul"tions "nd other issu"n#es, the d!inistr"tive Code li!its its "uthorit0 to !erel0!onitorin3 #o!pli"n#e +0 lo#"l 3overn!ent units of su#h issu"n#es. 99vii * o !onitor !e"ns to

w"t#h, o+serve or #he# "nd is #o!p"ti+le with the power of supervision of the DI2& Se#ret"r0 overlo#"l 3overn!ents, whi#h is li!ited to #he# in3 whether the lo#"l 3overn!ent unit #on#erned or theoffi#ers thereof perfor! their duties "s per st"tutor0 en"#t!ents. 99viii ' =esides, "n0 dou+t "s to the

power of the DI2& Se#ret"r0 to interfere with lo#"l "ff"irs should +e resolved in f"vor of the 3re"ter"utono!0 of the lo#"l 3overn!ent. 99i9 )

he pu+li# respondent ?ud3e therefore #o!!itted 3r"ve "+use of dis#retion "!ountin3 to l"# or e9#essof ?urisdi#tion in not dis!issin3 the respondent/s Petition for Review for f"ilure to e9h"ust "ll"d!inistr"tive re!edies "nd for l"# of ?urisdi#tion.

"ERE ORE , the inst"nt petition is here+0 &R N ED. he Order of the Re3ion"l ri"l Courtd"ted June , $))) is RE ERSED "nd SE SIDE. he Petition for Review filed +0 the priv"terespondent do# eted "s SP2. PROC. NO. $(58 is DISMISSED.


14/32

iiiiiiivvviDE & :M N S COME2EC

On M"r#h -$, ((4, the S"n33uni"n3 P"nlun3sod of u3ue3"r"o Cit0 p"ssed Resolution No. (4'% ((4 to "uthori;eCit0 M"0or in3 to "#@uire two p"r#els of l"nd for use "s " pu+li# #e!eter0 of the Cit0. Pursu"nt to the resolution, Cit0M"0or in3 pur#h"sed the two p"r#els of l"nd, identified "s 2ot Nos. 5'8( "nd 5'8$ "nd lo#"ted "t tul"0"n Sur,

u3ue3"r"o Cit0, with "n "33re3"te "re" of 4,'$8 s@u"re !eters 6#overed +0 r"nsfer Certifi#"tes of itle C No.%-8)4 "nd C No. %-8)4- of the Re3ister of Deeds in u3ue3"r"o Cit07, fro! nsel!o l!";"n, n3elo l!";"n

"nd nsel!o l!";"n III. s p"0!ent, Cit0 re"surer &"r#i" issued "nd rele"sed re"sur0 "rr"nt No. ((($5-45$4d"ted pril (, ((4 in the su! of P',4'8,( *.((. On M"0 5, ((4, the Cit0 &overn!ent of u3ue3"r"o #"used there3istr"tion of the s"le "nd the issu"n#e of new #ertifi#"tes in its n"!e 6i.e., C No. %$444 ' "nd C No. %$444 )7.

="sed on the tr"ns"#tion, the petitioner filed " #o!pl"int in the Offi#e of the Provin#i"l Ele#tion Supervisor of C"3"0"nProvin#e "3"inst Cit0 M"0or in3 "nd Cit0 re"surer &"r#i", #h"r3in3 the! with " viol"tion of Se#tion 8$, p"r"3r"phs6v7 "nd 6w7, of the O!ni+us Ele#tion Code, for h"vin3 undert" en to #onstru#t " pu+li# #e!eter0 "nd for h"vin3rele"sed, dis+ursed "nd e9pended pu+li# funds within 45 d"0s prior to the M"0 ), ((4 ele#tion, in disre3"rd of the

prohi+itions under s"id provisions due to the ele#tion +"n period h"vin3 #o!!en#ed on M"r#h 8, ((4 "nd ended onM"0 ), ((4.

Issues

he issues to +e resolved "re

6 7 hether or not the "#@uisition of 2ots 5'8( "nd 5''$ durin3 the period of the ele#tion +"n w"s #overed +0the ter! pu+li# wor s "s to +e in viol"tion of Se#tion 8$ 6v7 of the O!ni+us Ele#tion CodeA "nd

6-7 hether or not the issu"n#e of re"sur0 "rr"nt No. ((($5-45$4 durin3 the period of the ele#tion +"n w"sin viol"tion of Se#tion 8$ 6w7 of the O!ni+us Ele#tion Code.

he COME2EC held in its resolution d"ted


15/32

whether of #onstru#tion or "d"pt"tion undert" en "nd #"rried out +0 the n"tion"l, st"te, or !uni#ip"l "uthorities,desi3ned to su+serve so!e purpose of pu+li# ne#essit0, use or #onvenien#e, su#h "s pu+li# +uildin3s, ro"ds, "@uedu#ts,

p"r s, et#.A or, in other words, "ll fi9ed wor s #onstru#ted for pu+li# use. $

It +e#o!es inevit"+le to #on#lude, therefore, th"t the petitionerQs insisten#e th"t the "#@uisition of 2ots 5'8( "nd 5''$for use "s " pu+li# #e!eter0 +e #onsidered " dis+urse!ent of the pu+li# funds for pu+li# wor s in viol"tion of Se#tion

8$6v7 of the O!ni+us Ele#tion Code w"s unfounded "nd unw"rr"nted.

I$$ #&5% o6 ' % Tr%#$ r* #rr#&'D ri&8 ' % P%rio( o6 ' % El%5'io& B#&

Viol#'%( S%5'io& 2 1 :;


16/32

su+p"r"3r"ph 6+7, of the O!ni+us Ele#tion Code.

Costs of suit to +e p"id +0 the priv"te respondents.

SO ORDERED.

9%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

PANLA !I VS COMELEC

Petitioner Mo;"rt P"nl"@ui 6P"nl"@ui7 "ss"ils the Co!!ission on Ele#tions 6Co!ele#7 (n $anc Resolution of June $*,(() den0in3 his !otion for pro#l"!"tion, whi#h he filed "fter this Court "ffir!ed in &.R. No. $'((5$ $ the

nullifi#"tion of the pro#l"!"tion of priv"te respondent N"rdo el"s#o 6 el"s#o7 "s !"0or of S"s!u"n, P"!p"n3".

el"s#o w"s +orn in S"s!u"n on June , $)5 to


17/32

the Muni#ip"l ri"l Court 6M C7 of S"s!u"n whi#h, +0 De#ision of


18/32

pl"#er. Conse@uentl0, P"lilen3/s pro#l"!"tion "s M"0or of =u3ui"s, =en3uet is +e0ond @uestion.

Second , there "re spe#ifi# re@uire!ents for the "ppli#"tion of the do#trine on the re?e#tionof the se#ond pl"#er. he do#trine will "ppl0 in ="0"#s"n/s f"vor, re3"rdless of his intervention inthe present #"se, if two #onditions #on#ur 6$7 the de#ision on C"0"t/s dis@u"lifi#"tion r%@#i&%(p%&(i&8 o& %l%5'io& (#*, $( M"0 ((4, resultin3 in the presen#e of two !"0or"lt0 #"ndid"tes for =u3ui"s, =en3uet in the ele#tionsA "nd 6 7 the de#ision on C"0"t/s dis@u"lifi#"tion +e#"!e fin"l onl0

#6'%r the ele#tions. * 6e!ph"sis "nd it"li#s in the ori3in"lA unders#orin3 supplied7

Rep"# "3in3 the present petition in Ca"at* s f"shion, P"nl"@ui "sserts th"t the R C M"r#h $, ((* De#ision in thevoter/s in#lusion pro#eedin3s !ust +e #onsidered "s the fin"l ?ud3!ent of dis@u"lifi#"tion "3"inst el"s#o, whi#hde#ision w"s issued !ore th"n two !onths prior to the ele#tions. P"nl"@ui posits th"t when el"s#o/s petition forin#lusion w"s denied, he w"s "lso de#l"red "s dis@u"lified to run for pu+li# offi#e.

nwr"ppin3 the present petition, the Court finds th"t the true #olor of the issue of distin#tion +etween "

petition for in#lusion of voters in the list "nd " petition to den0 due #ourse to or #"n#el " #ertifi#"te of #"ndid"#0 h"s

"lre"d0 +een defined in +elasco v. Commission on (lections where the Court held th"t the two pro#eedin3s !"0

ulti!"tel0 h"ve #o!!on f"#tu"l +"ses +ut the0 "re poles "p"rt in ter!s of the issues, reliefs "nd re!edies involved,

thus

In ter!s of purpose, voters/ in#lusionHe9#lusion "nd COC deni"lH#"n#ell"tion "re different pro#eedin3sA one refers to the "ppli#"tion to +e re3istered "s " voter to +e eli3i+le to vote, while theother refers to the "ppli#"tion to +e " #"ndid"te. =e#"use of their differin3 purposes, the0 "lso involvedifferent issues "nd ent"il different reliefs, "lthou3h the f"#ts on whi#h the0 rest !"0 h"ve#o!!on"lities where the0 !"0 +e s"id to #onver3e or interf"#e. 9 9 9 9 6unders#orin3 supplied7

oters/ in#lusionHe9#lusion pro#eedin3s , on the one h"nd, essenti"ll0 involve the issue of whether " petitioner

sh"ll +e in#luded in or e9#luded fro! the list of voters +"sed on the @u"lifi#"tions re@uired +0 l"w "nd the f"#ts

presented to show possession of these @u"lifi#"tions. 10

On the other h"nd, COC deni"lH#"n#ell"tion pro#eedin3s involve the issue of whether there is " f"lse represent"tion of "

!"teri"l f"#t. he f"lse represent"tion !ust ne#ess"ril0 pert"in not to " !ere inno#uous !ist" e +ut to " !"teri"l f"#t or

those th"t refer to " #"ndid"te/s @u"lifi#"tions for ele#tive offi#e. p"rt fro! the re@uire!ent of !"teri"lit0, the f"lse

represent"tion !ust #onsist of " deli+er"te "tte!pt to !isle"d, !isinfor!, or hide " f"#t whi#h would otherwise render "

#"ndid"te ineli3i+le or, otherwise st"ted, with the intention to de#eive the ele#tor"te "s to the would%+e #"ndid"te/s

@u"lifi#"tions for pu+li# offi#e. 11

In +elasco , the Court re?e#ted el"s#o/s #ontention th"t the Co!ele# i!properl0 ruled on the ri3ht to vote when it

#"n#elled his COC. he Court st"ted th"t the Co!ele# !erel0 relied on or re#o3ni;ed the R C/s fin"l "nd e9e#utor0

de#ision on the !"tter of the ri3ht to vote in the pre#in#t within its territori"l ?urisdi#tion. In the present petition, it is

P"nl"@ui/s turn to proffer the novel interpret"tion th"t the R C properl0 #"n#elled el"s#o/s COC when it ruled on his

ri3ht to vote. he Court re?e#ts the s"!e.

It is not within the provin#e of the R C in " voter/s in#lusionHe9#lusion pro#eedin3s to t" e #o3ni;"n#e of "nd

deter!ine the presen#e of " f"lse represent"tion of " !"teri"l f"#t. It h"s no ?urisdi#tion to tr0 the issues of whether the

!isrepresent"tion rel"tes to !"teri"l f"#t "nd whether there w"s "n intention to de#eive the ele#tor"te in ter!s of one/s

@u"lifi#"tions for pu+li# offi#e. he findin3 th"t el"s#o w"s not @u"lified to vote due to l"# of residen#0 re@uire!ent

does not tr"nsl"te into " findin3 of " deli+er"te "tte!pt to !isle"d, !isinfor!, or hide " f"#t whi#h would otherwise

render hi! ineli3i+le. ssu!in3 arguendo the pl"usi+ilit0 of P"nl"@ui/s theor0, the Co!ele# #orre#tl0 o+served th"t


19/32

when the R C issued its M"r#h $, ((* De#ision, there w"s 0et no COC to #"n#el +e#"use el"s#o/s COC w"s filed

onl0 on M"r#h ', ((*. Indeed, not onl0 would it +e in e9#ess of ?urisdi#tion +ut "lso +e0ond the re"l! of possi+ilit0

for the R C to rule th"t there w"s deli+er"te #on#e"l!ent on the p"rt of el"s#o when he st"ted under o"th in his COC

th"t he is " re3istered voter of S"s!u"n despite his nowled3e of the R C de#ision whi#h w"s 0et forth#o!in3.

IN


20/32

RO !E VS COMELEC

#5'$

his #"se is " !otion for re#onsider"tion filed +0 the petitioners of the Septe!+er $(, (()rulin3 of the Supre!e Court, whi#h denied the petition of 1. 1"rr0 2. Ro@ue, Jr., et "l. for certiorari , prohi!ition , "nd mandamus to nullif0 the #ontr"#t%"w"rd of the ($( Ele#tion

uto!"tion Pro?e#t to the ?oint venture of ot"l Infor!"tion M"n"3e!ent Corpor"tion 6 IM7 "ndS!"rt!"ti# Intern"tion"l Corpor"tion 6S!"rt!"ti#7.

In this MR, petitioners Ro@ue, et "l. "re "3"in +efore the Supre!e Court "s in3 th"t the #ontr"#t"w"rd +e de#l"red null "nd void on the st"ted 3round th"t it w"s !"de in viol"tion of theConstitution, st"tutes, "nd ?urispruden#e. Intervenin3 petitioner "lso interposed " si!il"r !otion, +utonl0 to pr"0 th"t the =o"rd of Ele#tion Inspe#tors +e ordered to !"nu"ll0 #ount the +"llots "fter the

printin3 "nd ele#troni# tr"ns!ission of the ele#tion returns.

Petitioners Ro@ue, et "l., "s !ov"nts herein, see " re#onsider"tion of the Septe!+er $(, (()De#ision on the followin3 issues or 3rounds

$. he Co!ele#/s pu+li# pronoun#e!ents show th"t there is " >hi3h pro+"+ilit0> th"t there will +ef"ilure of "uto!"ted ele#tionsA

. Co!ele# "+di#"ted its #onstitution"l fun#tions in f"vor of S!"rt!"ti#A-. here is no le3"l fr"!ewor to 3uide the Co!ele# in "ppre#i"tin3 "uto!"ted +"llots in #"se thePCOS !"#hines f"ilA

4. Respondents #"nnot #o!pl0 with the re@uire!ents of R '4-8 for " sour#e #ode reviewA5. Certifi#"tions su+!itted +0 priv"te respondents "s to the su##essful use of the !"#hines in

ele#tions "+ro"d do not fulfill the re@uire!ent of Se#. $ of R '4-8A8. Priv"te respondents will not +e "+le to provide tele#o!!uni#"tions f"#ilities th"t will "ssure$(( #o!!uni#"tions #over"3e "t "ll ti!es durin3 the #ondu#t of the ($( ele#tionsA "nd*. Su+#ontr"#tin3 the !"nuf"#ture of PCOS !"#hines to Luisdi viol"tes the Co!ele#/s +iddin3rules.

I$$ % Is the !otion for re#onsider"tion !eritorious

R li&8 No.

pon t" in3 " se#ond h"rd loo into the issues in the #"se "t +"r "nd the "r3u!ents e"rnestl0 pressed in the inst"nt !otions, the Court #"nnot 3r"nt the desired re#onsider"tion.


21/32

Petitioners/ threshold "r3u!ent delves on possi+ilities, on !"tters th"t !"0 or !"0 not o##ur. he#on?e#tur"l "nd spe#ul"tive n"ture of the first issue r"ised is refle#ted in the ver0 !"nner of itsfor!ul"tion "nd +0 st"te!ents, su#h "s >the pu+li# pronoun#e!ents of pu+li# respondentCOME2EC 9 9 9 #le"rl0 show th"t there is " hi3h pro+"+ilit0 th"t there will +e "uto!"ted f"ilure of ele#tions>A >there is " hi3h pro+"+ilit0 th"t the use of PCOS !"#hines in the M"0 ($( ele#tions

will result in f"ilure of ele#tions>A >the un"ddressed lo3isti#"l ni3ht!"resB"nd the l"# of#ontin3en#0 pl"ns th"t should h"ve +een #r"fted "s " result of " pilot testB!" e "n "uto!"tedf"ilure of ele#tions ver0 pro+"+le>A "nd >COME2EC #o!!itted 3r"ve "+use of dis#retion when itsi3ned 9 9 9 the #ontr"#t for full "uto!"tion 9 9 9 despite the li elihood of " f"ilure of ele#tions.>

Spe#ul"tions "nd #on?e#tures "re not e@uiv"lent to proofA the0 h"ve little, if "n0, pro+"tive v"lue"nd, surel0, #"nnot +e the +"sis of " sound ?ud3!ent.

Petitioners, to support their spe#ul"tive venture vis%T%vis the possi+ilit0 of Co!ele# 3oin3 !"nu"l,h"ve "ttri+uted #ert"in st"te!ents to respondent Co!ele# Ch"ir!"n Melo, #itin3 for the purpose "news ite! on [email protected], posted Septe!+er $8, (().

Re"#tin3 to the "ttri+ution, however, respondents IM "nd S!"rt!"ti#, in their #o!!ent, des#ri+edthe Melo pronoun#e!ents "s !"de in the #onte9t of Co!ele#/s #ontin3en#0 pl"n. Petitioners,however, the s"!e respondents "dded, put " !isle"din3 spin to the Melo pronoun#e!ents +0reprodu#in3 p"rt of the news ite!, +ut o!ittin3 to !" e referen#e to his su##eedin3 st"te!ents to"rrive "t " #le"rer "nd true pi#ture.

Priv"te respondents/ o+serv"tion is well%t" en. Indeed, it is e"s0 to sele#tivel0 #ite portions of wh"th"s +een s"id, so!eti!es out of their proper #onte9t, in order to "ssert " !isle"din3 #on#lusion. heeffe#t #"n +e d"n3erous. I!proper !e"nin3 !"0 +e deli+er"tel0 "tt"#hed to inno#ent views or eveno##"sion"l #rude #o!!ents +0 the si!ple e9pedien#0 of liftin3 the! out of #onte9t fro! "n0

pu+li#"tion.

Petitioners/ posture "nent the third issue, i.e, there no is le3"l fr"!ewor to 3uide Co!ele# in the"ppre#i"tion of "uto!"ted +"llots or to 3overn !"nu"l #ount should PCOS !"#hines f"il, #"nnot +e"##orded #o3en#0. Resort to !"nu"l "ppre#i"tion of the +"llots is pre#luded +0 the

+"si# fe"tures of the "uto!"ted ele#tion s0ste!,> "nd >the rules l"id down in the O!ni+us Ele#tionCode 6OEC7 for the "ppre#i"tion "nd #ountin3 of +"llots #"st in " !"nu"l ele#tion 9 9 9 "rein"ppropri"te, if not downri3ht useless, to the proper "ppre#i"tion "nd re"din3 of the +"llots used in

the "uto!"ted s0ste!.> ithout delvin3 on its wisdo! "nd v"lidit0, the view of Justi#e P"n3"ni+"nthus #ited #"!e +0 w"0 of " dissentin3 opinion. s su#h, it is without +indin3 effe#t, " dissentin3opinion +ein3 " !ere e9pression of the individu"l view of " !e!+er of the Court or other #olle3i"l


22/32

"d?udi#"tin3 +od0, while dis"3reein3 with the #on#lusion held +0 the !"?orit0.

nd 3oin3 to "nother +ut re#0#led issue, petitioners would h"ve the Court inv"lid"te the "uto!"tion#ontr"#t on the 3round th"t the #ertifi#"tions su+!itted +0 S!"rt!"ti# durin3 the +iddin3, showin3th"t the PCOS te#hnolo30 h"s +een used in ele#tions "+ro"d, do not #o!pl0 with Se#. $ of R'4-8. Presentl0, petitioners "ssert th"t the s0ste! #ertified "s h"vin3 +een used in New or w"s the

Do!inion I!"3e C"st, " +"llot !"r in3 devi#e.

Petitioners h"ve o+viousl0 inserted, "t this st"3e of the #"se, "n entirel0 new f"#tu"l di!ension totheir #"use. his we #"nnot "llow for #o!pellin3 re"sons.


23/32

the COME2EC fl0in3 voters> to #"st votesA "nd 6-7 i3nored the rules on"ppre#i"tion of +"llots, resultin3 in !isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots.

ddition"ll0, he "lle3ed th"t Re3io #o!!itted vote%+u0in3, "nd en3"3ed in distri+ution of s"!ple +"llots inside the pollin3 #enters durin3 the d"0 of the ele#tions .

Of the seven #lustered pre#in#ts 6CPs7 initi"ll0 protested, Co would l"ter e9#lude CP Nos. $-(4"nd $-(5 fro! the protest. Durin3 the preli!in"r0 #onferen#e, the tri"l #ourt "llowed the revisionof +"llots. he revision of +"llots o##urred on J"nu"r0 $-%$4, ($$ .- Per the report of the revision#o!!ittee, the nu!+er of votes o+t"ined +0 +oth #"ndid"tes in the #ontested pre#in#ts, "s shown

+elow, indi#"ted " su+st"nti"l re#over0 on the p"rt of Co

C"ndid"teClustered Pre#in#t Nu!+er ot"l$-( $-(- $-(4 $-(5 $-(8 $-(* $-(*=Co,Ronnie C.$8(%%8-)'- $Re3io, J"i!e C.'8%%8 '4 - Durin3 his turn to present eviden#e, Co li!itedhis offer to the revision #o!!ittee report, showin3 th"t he 3"rnered the hi3hest nu!+er of votes.Re3io, on the other h"nd, denied th"t the ele#tions were t"inted with irre3ul"rities. 1e #l"i!ed th"tthe results of the revision "re produ#ts of post%ele#tions oper"tions, "s the +"llots were t"!peredwith, swit#hed, "nd "ltered dr"sti#"ll0 to #h"n3e the results of the ele#tions. 1e presented "switnesses the followin3 poll w"t#hers Ev"n3eline &"r#i", Ce;"r Re3io, "nd Ru+en Merilles, who"ll testified th"t there were no inst"n#es of ele#tor"l fr"ud, irre3ul"rities, "nd "no!"lies durin3 the

d"0 of the ele#tions. Presented too were volunteers 2ove 3p"o" "nd Ro!0 Lue, who +elied"lle3"tions of !is#ountin3, !isre"din3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of the +"llots durin3 the #ountin3, "ndDo!in"dor Del" Cru;, Ch"irperson of the =E for CP Nos. $-( H$-(- , "s well "s Erlin"1ern"nde;, Ch"irperson of the =E for CP No. $-(8 , who +oth testified th"t the0 followed therules "nd re3ul"tions in #ondu#tin3 the ele#tions in ="r"n3"0 )8, "nd th"t e"#h +"llot w"s #orre#tl0t"+ul"ted. 4

he results of the revision notwithst"ndin3, the tri"l #ourt, in its De#ision of M"0 4, ($$, dis!issedCo/s protest "nd de#l"red Re3io "s the dul0%ele#ted punon3 +"r"n3"0 of ="r"n3"0 )8. It disposedof the #"se, "s follows

1EREPunon3="r"n3"0> or >="r"n3"0 Ch"ir!"n> of ="r"n3"0 )8, Distri#t III, M"nil" +0 the ="r"n3"0 =o"rd of C"nv"ssers is "ffir!ed +0 this #ourt. he ele#tion protest filed +0 the protest"nt Ronnie C. Co is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt4


24/32

dis!issed for l"# of !erit. 5

##ordin3 to the tri"l #ourt, +efore it #"n "##ord #reden#e to the results of the revision, it shouldfirst +e "s#ert"ined th"t the +"llots found in the +o9 durin3 the revision "re the s"!e +"llotsdeposited +0 the voters. In fine, the #ourt >should first +e #onvin#ed th"t the +"llots #ounted durin3

the revision h"ve not +een t"!pered with +efore it #"n de#l"re the +"llots "7 "s superior eviden#e ofhow the ele#tor"te voted, "nd +7 "s suffi#ient eviden#e to set "side the ele#tion returns. 8 Invo in3 Ros"l v. COME2EC, * the tri"l #ourt ruled th"t Co f"iled tosuffi#ientl0 show th"t the inte3rit0 of the #ontested +"llots h"d +een preserved. It then #ited the

presu!ption th"t ele#tion returns "re 3enuine, "nd th"t the d"t" "nd infor!"tion supplied +0 the +o"rd of ele#tion inspe#tors "re true "nd #orre#t .'

he tri"l #ourt s"id

#loser s#rutin0 of the pre!ise !"de +0 the protest"nt will reve"l th"t he is tr0in3 to prove the!isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots +0 introdu#in3 "s eviden#e the !"r eddifferen#e of the results of the revision "nd of the results in the ele#tion returns. his pre!ise is too

presu!ptuous. he !"r ed differen#e #"nnot +e used to prove the !isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd!is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots +e#"use the !isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots is

pre#isel0 wh"t the protest"nt needs to prove to ?ustif0 the !"r ed differen#e in the results. Pruden#edi#t"tes th"t the protest"nt should first e9pl"in where this hu3e dis#rep"n#0 is #o!in3 fro! +eforeusin3 it "s eviden#e. In other words, the !isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of +"llotsshould +e proven +0 other independent eviden#e. ithout "n0 eviden#e, the "lle3"tion of!isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots re!"ins " !ere "lle3"tion without "n0

pro+"tive v"lue. )

r"versin3 the "lle3"tions of post%ele#tions t"!perin3, the tri"l #ourt re?e#ted Co/s "lle3"tion th"tthe +"llot +o9es were properl0 lo# ed "nd se"led. In f"#t, the tri"l #ourt s"id, the envelope#ont"inin3 the +"llots for CP Nos. $-( H$-(- w"s 3lued on +oth sides, pro!ptin3 protestee/srevisor to #o!!ent th"t the envelope "ppe"rs to +e re%p"sted "nd t"!pered. In CP No. $-(8 , thereport st"ted th"t the +"llots were not pl"#ed in " se"led envelope. $( Coroll"ril0, the tri"l #ourtst"ted the o+serv"tion th"t Re3io h"s presented #redi+le witnesses to prove th"t there were noirre3ul"rities or "no!"lies durin3 the #"stin3 "nd #ountin3 of votes. 33rieved, Co filed "n "ppe"l

+efore the COME2EC, "r3uin3 th"t the tri"l #ourt erred

$.7 In disre3"rdin3 the result of the ph0si#"l #ount of the revised +"llots found in Pre#in#t Nos.

$-( H$-(- "nd $-(8 A

.7 In de#l"rin3 th"t the protest"nt "ppell"nt w"s not "+le to suffi#ientl0 show th"t the inte3rit0 ofthe #ontested +"llots in Pre#in#t Nos. $-( H$-(- "nd $-(8 w"s preservedA

-.7 In de#l"rin3 th"t protest"nt%"ppell"nt w"s not "+le to over#o!e the presu!ption of re3ul"rit0 ofthe ele#tion, #ountin3, "nd #"nv"ssin3 pro#eedin3s in the protested pre#in#ts of ="r"n3"0 )8,M"nil"A

4.7 In de#l"rin3 th"t the votes o+t"ined +0 the p"rties in Pre#in#t Nos. $-( H$-(- "nd $-(8 "srefle#ted in their respe#tive Ele#tion Returns "re the true "nd "#tu"l results of the ele#tionsA

5.7 In 3ivin3 wei3ht to the in#redulous "nd #onfli#tin3 testi!onies of the o+viousl0 +i"sed witnessesof the protestee%"ppelleeA
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt10


25/32

8.7 In refusin3 to lend #reden#e to the testi!on0 of the e9pert witness fro! the Co!!ission onEle#tions th"t the +"llots o+t"ined fro! Pre#in#t Nos. $-( H$-(- "nd $-(8 "re 3enuine +"llotsA"nd

*.7 In refusin3 to "ppre#i"te the #ontested "nd revised +"llots for Pre#in#t Nos. $-( H$-(- "nd

$-(8 "nd the "ppre#i"tion of the #ontested +"llots found in Pre#in#t No. $-(* H$-(*=. $$

In " Resolution d"ted u3ust -, ($$, the COME2EC !ere +0%produ#ts of the ele#tor"l fr"ud#o!!itted to +enefit 6protestee%"ppellee7 in#ludin3 +ut not li!ited to !isre"din3, !is#ountin3, "nd!is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots +0 the Ch"irpersons of the =o"rd of Ele#tion ellers in order to in#re"sethe votes of the Protestee% ppellee "nd de#re"se the votes th"t should h"ve +een properl0 #reditedto Protest"nt% ppell"nt Co.>

6e!ph"sis in the ori3in"l7

s previousl0 !entioned, protest"nt%"ppell"nt/s "ssertion is spe#ious 9 9 9. he re#ords of the #"seis +ereft of "n0 eviden#e supportin3 protest"nt%"ppell"nt/s #l"i!s of ele#tor"l fr"ud "nd, thus, e#on#ur with the tri"l #ourt st"tin3, >6w7ithout "n0 eviden#e, the "lle3"tion of !isre"din3,!is#ountin3, "nd !is"ppre#i"tion of +"llots re!"ins " !ere "lle3"tion without pro+"tive v"lue.> $4

he COME2EC


26/32

Co then filed " Motion for Re#onsider"tion. In its "ss"iled De#e!+er *, ($ Resolution, theCOME2EC En ="n# $* re#onsidered the u3ust -, ($$ Resolution of the


27/32

In M"l"lu"n v. COME2EC , $ this Court settled the !"tter on when "n ele#tion protest #"se +e#o!es !oot "nd "#"de!i#

hen the "ppe"l fro! " de#ision in "n ele#tion #"se h"s "lre"d0 +e#o!e !oot, the #"se +ein3 "nele#tion protest involvin3 the offi#e of !"0or the ter! of whi#h h"d e9pired, the "ppe"l is

dis!issi+le on th"t 3round, unless the renderin3 of " de#ision on the !erits would +e of pr"#ti#"lv"lue. 6e!ph"sis "dded7

In the #"se now +efore the Court, the position involved is th"t of " punon3 +"r"n3"0. he 3overnin3l"w, therefore, is Repu+li# #t No. 6R 7 )$84, "s "!ended +0 R )-4(. Se#. 4 of the l"w st"tes

Se#. 4. ssu!ption of Offi#e. % he ter! of offi#e of the +"r"n3"0 "nd s"n33uni"n3 "+"t""noffi#i"ls ele#ted under this #t sh"ll #o!!en#e on u3ust $5, (( , ne9t followin3 their ele#tions.

he ter! of offi#e of the +"r"n3"0 "nd s"n33uni"n3 "+"t""n offi#i"ls ele#ted in the O#to+er ((*ele#tion "nd su+se@uent ele#tions sh"ll #o!!en#e "t noon of Nove!+er -( ne9t followin3 theirele#tion. 6e!ph"sis "dded7

he #ourt t" es ?udi#i"l noti#e of the holdin3 of +"r"n3"0 ele#tions l"st O#to+er ', ($-.


28/32

647 It is onl0 when the protest"nt h"s shown su+st"nti"l #o!pli"n#e with the provisions of l"w onthe preserv"tion of +"llots th"t the +urden of provin3 "#tu"l t"!perin3 or li elihood thereof shifts tothe protesteeA "nd

657 Onl0 if it "ppe"rs to the s"tisf"#tion of the #ourt of COME2EC th"t the inte3rit0 of the +"llots

h"s +een preserved should it "dopt the result "s shown +0 the re#ount "nd not "s refle#ted in theele#tion returns. In the s"!e #"se, the Court referred to v"rious provisions in the O!ni+us Ele#tionCode providin3 for the s"fe% eepin3 "nd preserv"tion of the +"llots, !ore spe#ifi#"ll0 Se#s. $8(,

$*, $), "nd ( of the Code.

Ros"l w"s pro!ul3"ted pre#isel0 to honor the presu!ption of re3ul"rit0 in the perfor!"n#e ofoffi#i"l fun#tions. u pholdin3 the soverei3nt0 of the people is wh"t de!o#r"#0 is "ll "+out.

hen the soverei3nt0 of the people e9pressed thru the +"llot is "t st" e, it is not enou3h for thisCourt to !" e " st"te!ent +ut it should do ever0thin3 to h"ve th"t soverei3nt0 o+e0ed +0 "ll. elldone is "lw"0s +etter th"n well s"id.> 5

his is re"ll0 wh"t the Ros"l do#trine is "ll "+out. he Ros"l do#trine ensures th"t in ele#tion protest#"ses, the supre!e !"nd"te of the people is ulti!"tel0 deter!ined. In l"0in3 down the rules in

"ppre#i"tin3 the #onfli#tin3 results of the #"nv"ssin3 "nd the results of " revision l"ter !"de, theCourt h"s no other intention +ut to deter!ine the will of the ele#tor"te. he Ros"l do#trine is "lsosupple!ented +0 .M. No. (*%4%$5%SC, 8 est"+lishin3 the followin3 disput"+le presu!ptions

SEC. 8. Disput"+le presu!ptions. % he followin3 presu!ptions "re #onsidered "s f"#ts, unless#ontr"di#ted "nd over#o!e +0 other eviden#e 6"7 On the ele#tion pro#edure 6$7 he ele#tion of#"ndid"tes w"s held on the d"te "nd ti!e set "nd in the pollin3 pl"#e deter!ined +0 the Co!!issionon Ele#tionsA 6 7 he =o"rds of Ele#tion Inspe#tors were dul0 #onstituted "nd or3"ni;edA 6-7Politi#"l p"rties "nd #"ndid"tes were dul0 represented +0 pollw"t#hersA 647 Pollw"t#hers were "+leto perfor! their fun#tionsA "nd 657 he Minutes of otin3 "nd Countin3 #ont"ins "ll the in#identsth"t tr"nspired +efore the =o"rd of Ele#tion Inspe#tors. 6+7 On ele#tion p"r"phern"li" 6$7 ="llots

"nd ele#tion returns th"t +e"r the se#urit0 !"r in3s "nd fe"tures pres#ri+ed +0 the Co!!ission onEle#tions "re 3enuineA 6 7 he d"t" "nd infor!"tion supplied +0 the !e!+ers of the =o"rds ofEle#tion Inspe#tors in the "##ount"+le for!s "re true "nd #orre#tA "nd 6-7 he "llo#"tion, p"# in3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt26


29/32

"nd distri+ution of ele#tion do#u!ents or p"r"phern"li" were properl0 "nd ti!el0 done. 6#7 On"ppre#i"tion of +"llots 6$7 +"llot with "ppropri"te se#urit0 !"r in3s is v"lidA 6 7 he +"llotrefle#ts the intent of the voterA 6-7 he +"llot is properl0 "##o!plishedA 647 voter person"ll0

prep"red one +"llot, e9#ept in the #"se of "ssistorsA "nd 657 he e9er#ise of one/s ri3ht to vote w"svolunt"r0 "nd free.

Priv"te respondent Co h"s not proved th"t the inte3rit0 of the +"llots h"s +een preserved ppl0in3Ros"l, viewed in #on?un#tion with .M. No. (*%4%$5%SC, this Court rules th"t the COME2EC En="n# #o!!itted 3r"ve "+use of dis#retion in rulin3 th"t priv"te respondent h"d su##essfull0dis#h"r3ed the +urden of provin3 th"t the +"llots #ounted durin3 the revision pro#eedin3s "re thes"!e +"llots #"st "nd #ounted durin3 the d"0 of the ele#tions. h"t is the essen#e of the se#ond

p"r"3r"ph in the Ros"l do#trine. It is well to note th"t the respondent Co did not present "n0testi!oni"l eviden#e to prove th"t the ele#tion p"r"phern"li" inside the protested +"llot +o9es h"d

+een preserved. 1e !"inl0 relied on the report of the revision #o!!ittee. here w"s noindependent, dire#t or indire#t, eviden#e to prove the preserv"tion of the +"llots "nd other ele#tion

p"r"phern"li". his le"ds s to no other #on#lusion +ut th"t respondent Co f"iled to dis#h"r3e his +urden under the Ros"l do#trine. ith no independent eviden#e to spe" of, respondent Co #"nnotsi!pl0 rel0 on the report of the revision #o!!ittee, "nd fro! there #on#lude th"t the report itself is

proof of the preserv"tion of the +"llots. h"t he needs to provide is eviden#e independent of therevision pro#eedin3s. ithout "n0 su#h eviden#e, the Court or the COME2EC, "s the #"se !"0 +e,will +e #onstr"ined to honor the presu!ption est"+lished in .M. No. (*%4%$5%SC, th"t the d"t" "ndinfor!"tion supplied +0 the !e!+ers of the =o"rds of Ele#tion Inspe#tors in the "##ount"+le for!s"re true "nd #orre#t.

Respondent Co "d!its h"vin3, under the Ros"l do#trine, the +urden of provin3 the preserv"tion ofthe +"llots, "nd #oroll"ril0, th"t their inte3rit0 h"ve not +een #o!pro!ised +efore the revision

pro#eedin3s. 1e, however, "r3ues th"t he h"d su##essfull0 dis#h"r3ed th"t +urden. nd how )irst, he pointed out th"t fro! the !o!ent the v"rious =E s pl"#ed the #ounted offi#i"l +"llots inside the

+"llot +o9es until the0 were tr"nsported for #"nv"ssin3, "nd until the0 were tr"ns!itted to theEle#tion Offi#erHCit0 re"surer of M"nil" for stor"3e "nd #ustod0, no irre3ul"rities or +"llot%+o9sn"t#hin3 were reportedA neither w"s there "n0 news or re#ord of +"llot +o9 t"!perin3 in the

protested pre#in#ts. Second , no untow"rd in#ident or irre3ul"rit0 whi#h !"0 t"int or "ffe#t theinte3rit0 of the +"llot +o9es w"s ever reported when the0 were tr"nsported to the stor"3e "re" of thetri"l #ourt. &hird, the stor"3e pl"#e of the +"llot +o9es w"s "t "ll ti!es ti3htl0 se#ured, properl0

prote#ted, "nd well s"fe3u"rded. )ourth , "ll the protested +"llot +o9es were properl0 lo# ed "ndse"led. )ifth , the petitioner never @uestioned or r"ised "n0 issue on the preserv"tion of the inte3rit0of the protested +"llot +o9es. nd si%th, the e#hni#"l E9"!in"tion Report si3ned +0 the

COME2EC represent"tive #onfir!ed the 3enuineness, "uthenti#it0, "nd inte3rit0 of "ll the +"llotsfound durin3 the revision. *

e hold, however, th"t the fore3oin3 st"te!ents do not, +0 the!selves, #onstitute suffi#ienteviden#e th"t the +"llots h"ve +een preserved. Respondent Co #"nnot si!pl0 rel0 on the "lle3ed"+sen#e of eviden#e of reports of untow"rd in#idents, "nd fro! there i!!edi"tel0 #on#lude th"t the

+"llots h"ve +een preserved. h"t he should h"ve presented "re #on#rete pie#es of eviden#e,independent of the revision pro#eedin3s th"t will tend to show th"t the +"llots #ounted durin3 therevision pro#eedin3s were the ver0 s"!e ones #ounted +0 the =E s durin3 the ele#tions, "nd thever0 s"!e ones #"st +0 the pu+li#. 1e #"nnot ev"de his dut0 +0 si!pl0 rel0in3 on the "+sen#e ofreports of untow"rd in#idents th"t h"ppened to the +"llot +o9es. t +est, this reli"n#e on the

#ondition of the +"llot +o9es the!selves is spe#ul"tiveA "t worst, it is self%servin3. ithout presentin3 to the #ourt "n0 eviden#e outside of the pro#eedin3s, respondent Co "s protest"nt !"0si!pl0 #l"i! th"t the +"llot +o9es the!selves "re the proof th"t the0 were properl0 preserved. his
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/dec2013/gr_204828_2013.html#fnt27


30/32

3oes #ontr"r0 to the do#trine in Ros"l.

he respe#tive #ustodi"ns of the +"llot +o9es, fro! the ti!e the0 were used in the ele#tions untilthe0 were delivered to the #ourt, were not, to stress, presented in #ourt. he0 #ould h"ve testified "sto the se#urit0 "fforded the +"llot +o9es while in their #ustod0. Moreover, no witness "t "ll w"s

presented +0 respondent Co durin3 the pro#eedin3s in the tri"l #ourt. he Court re!inds respondentCo th"t the tri"l #ourt/s #onsider"tion of the #"se is #onfined to wh"tever eviden#e is presented

+efore it. his is "!pl0 st"ted in Rule $-, Se#. of .M. No. (*%4%$5%SC

Se#. . Offer of eviden#e. K he #ourt sh"ll #onsider no eviden#e th"t h"s not +een for!"ll0 offered.Offer of eviden#e sh"ll +e done or"ll0 on the l"st d"0 of he"rin3 "llowed for e"#h p"rt0 "fter the

present"tion of the l"st witness. he opposin3 p"rt0 sh"ll +e re@uired to i!!edi"tel0 interposeo+?e#tions thereto. he #ourt sh"ll rule on the offer of eviden#e in open #ourt. 1owever, the #ourt!"0, "t its dis#retion, "llow the p"rt0 to !" e "n offer of eviden#e in writin3, whi#h sh"ll +esu+!itted within three d"0s. If the #ourt re?e#ts "n0 eviden#e offered, the p"rt0 !"0 !" e " tenderof e9#luded eviden#e.

nfortun"tel0 for respondent Co, the witnesses whose "ffid"vits he "tt"#hed to his Protest werenever presented durin3 tri"l. hile he "3"in r"ised the tenor of these "ffid"vits in his Co!!ent filed

+efore s, those #"nnot +e #onsidered "n0!ore due to his f"ilure to present the! +efore the tri"l#ourt. Respondent #"nnot si!plisti#"ll0 insist on the #onsider"tion of s"id "ffid"vits, the tri"l #ourtnot h"vin3 +een 3iven the opportunit0 to o+serve their testi!onies, "nd petitioner not h"vin3 +een"##orded the opportunit0 to #ross%e9"!ine the!. he f"#t th"t respondent "tt"#hed the "ffid"vits inhis Protest does not !e"n th"t the tri"l #ourt is +ound to #onsider the!, pre#isel0 +e#"use the0 h"venot +een for!"ll0 offered +efore the #ourt. he "tt"#h!ents to the Protest will not +e #onsideredunless for!"ll0 offered. he Court notes th"t respondent Co h"s offered no e9pl"n"tion wh"tsoeverwh0 he f"iled to present his witnesses. Nevertheless, he would h"ve this Court #onsider "s eviden#etheir purported testi!onies. his would +e in#on3ruousl0 unf"ir to petitioner, who ende"vored to

prove his #"se +0 presentin3 eviden#e +efore the tri"l #ourt. Neither #"n respondent Co dis#l"i!responsi+ilit0 on the "r3u!ent th"t the petitioner never r"ised "s "n issue the preserv"tion of the

+"llot +o9es. Inherent in "ll ele#tion protest #"ses is the dut0 of the protest"nt to provide eviden#e of su#h preserv"tion. he f"ilure of the protestee to r"ise th"t "s "n issue will not ipso f"#to !e"n th"t

protest"nt need not present eviden#e to th"t effe#t. Moreover, the e#hni#"l E9"!in"tion Report, isnot, without !ore, eviden#e of preserv"tion. he Report !erel0 st"tes th"t the +"llots "re 3enuine.

h"t the protest"nt should ende"vor to prove, however, in presentin3 eviden#e of preserv"tion, isnot th"t the +"llots the!selves "re 3enuine or offi#i"l, +ut th"t the0 "re the ver0 s"!e ones #"st +0the ele#tor"te. he Report #"nnot possi+l0 deter!ine th"t. hile it !"0 +e th"t the +"llots

the!selves "re offi#i"l +"llots, there is still " de"rth of eviden#e on whether or not the0 were thes"!e offi#i"l +"llots #"st +0 the pu+li# durin3 the ele#tions. he Report, therefore, #"nnot +e#onsidered "s eviden#e of the preserv"tion, "s re@uired +0 Ros"l. he f"#t of preserv"tion is not, "srespondent Co #l"i!s, >in#ontroverti+le.> In f"#t, there is tot"l "+sen#e of eviden#e to th"t effe#t.

he in#ontroverti+le f"#t is th"t priv"te respondent, durin3 the pro#eedin3s +efore the tri"l #ourt, didnot present "n0 independent eviden#e to prove his #l"i!. ithout "n0 independent eviden#e, thetri"l #ourt, the COME2EC, "s well "s this Court, is #onstr"ined to "ffir! "s " f"#t the disput"+le

presu!ption th"t the +"llots were properl0 #ounted durin3 the #ountin3 "nd #"nv"ssin3 of votes. Insu!, e find th"t the COME2EC 3r"vel0 "+used its dis#retion in rulin3 th"t priv"te respondent h"ddis#h"r3ed the +urden of provin3 the inte3rit0 of the +"llots. e rule, on the #ontr"r0, th"t there isutter l"# of eviden#e to th"t effe#t.

Petitioner need not prove "#tu"l t"!perin3 of the +"llots Coroll"ril0, the COME2EC En ="n# h"druled th"t petitioner, "s protestee, f"iled to "ddu#e eviden#e th"t the +"llots found inside the +"llot


31/32

+o9es were #o!pro!ised "nd t"!pered. his stri es us "s +"seless "nd " #le"r dep"rture fro! thete"#hin3s of Ros"l.

he dut0 of the protestee in "n ele#tion #ontest to provide eviden#e of "#tu"l t"!perin3 or "n0li elihood "rises onl0 when the protest"nt h"s first su##essfull0 dis#h"r3e the +urden or providin3

th"t the +"llots h"ve +een se#ured to prevent t"!perin3 or sus#epti+ilit0 of #h"r3e, "+str"#tion orsu+stitution. Su#h need to present proof of t"!perin3 did not "rise sin#e protest"nt hi!self f"iled to

provide eviden#e of the inte3rit0 of the +"llots.

#"ndid"te for " pu+li# ele#tive position ou3ht to f"!ili"ri;e hi!self with ele#tion l"ws, pertinent ?urispruden#e, "nd COME2EC resolutions, rules "nd re3ul"tions. ltern"tivel0, he should h"ve "ne9perien#ed "nd nowled3e"+le ele#tion l"w0er to 3uide hi! on the different "spe#ts of ele#tion.S"ns #o!!ent le3"l "dvi#e "nd represent"tion " vi#tor0 in the ele#tions !"0 turn out to +e "#rushin3 defe"t for the #"ndid"te who "#tu"ll0 3ot the nod of the ele#tor"te. nfortun"tel0 forrespondent Co, he #o!!itted sever"l !is#ues th"t eventu"ll0 led to his de+"#le in the inst"ntele#tion protest.

1ERE


32/32

9iii9iv9v9vi9vii9viii9i9

9999i99ii99iii99iv99v99vi99vii99viii99i9

Documents

Concom Cases