Sison Tan Regalado Santos

8/20/2019 Sison Tan Regalado Santos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sison-tan-regalado-santos 1/11

Regalado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 115962, 15 February 2000

Facts:

Mayor Navarro appointed Barba as a nursing attendant in the Rural Health Office

of Tanjay, Negors Oriental by then Officerin!harge Mayor Rodolfo Navarro" #hen heran for $ayor, the petitioner %as appointed as O&! $ayor " 'etitioner issued a

$e$orandu$ infor$ing Barba that she %ould be reassign" This transfer %as $ade

%ithout prior approval of !OM()(!" Barba filed a co$plaint against petitioner for

violation of *ec" +- .h/ of the O$nibus (lection !ode" 'etitioner %as later charged and

convicted of the offense"

&ssue: #hether or not the !0 erred in affir$ing the decision RT! finding petitioner guilty

of B' 11- of the O$nibus (lection !ode"

Held:

The t%o ele$ents of offense prescribed under +-.h/ of the O$nibus (lection

!ode are .-/ a public officer or e$ployee is transferred or detailed %ithin election period

as fi2ed by the !OM)(!, and .+/ the transfer or detail %as effected %ithout prior

approval of the !OM()(! in accordance %ith its rules and regulations"

0ppointing authorities can transfer or detail personnel, as the e2igencies of public

service re3uire" Ho%ever, during election period, as such personnel $ove$ent could be

used for electioneering or even to harass subordinate %ho are of different political

persuasion, 4+- .h/ of the O$nibus (lection" !ode as a$ended, prohibits the sa$e

unless approved by the !OM()(!"

*! affir$ed the decision of the !0 %ith $odification that the a%ard of $oral

da$ages be deleted"



Tan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1661!"#!$, 166%91, 20 Nove&ber 2006

Fa'()'etitioners 0bdusa5ur M" Tan and Basaron Burahan %ere the gubernatorial and vice

gubernatorial candidates, respectively, of *ulu 'rovince in the May -6, +664 national

and local elections" On May -7, +664, petitioners, together %ith other local candidates

for congress$an, $ayor, and vice$ayor, filed %ith the !OM()(! four .4/ 'etitions for

8eclaration of Failure of (lections in the to%ns of Mai$bung, )uu5, Tong5il, and

'ana$ao, all of *ulu 'rovince, doc5eted as *'0 Nos" 6499, 64997, 6499, and 64

946, respectively" For the $unicipality of )uu5, *ulu, another 'etition for 8eclaration of

Failure of (lections %as filed by another gubernatorial candidate, ;usop <i5iri, and it

%as doc5eted as *'0 No" 64994"

'etitioners Tan and Burahan alleged syste$atic fraud, terroris$, illegal sche$es, and

$achinations allegedly perpetrated by private respondents and their supporters

resulting in $assive disenfranchise$ent of voters" 'etitioners sub$itted various

affidavits and photographs to substantiate their allegation"

Mean%hile, the !OM()(! *econd 8ivision, acting on the 'etitions for 8eclaration of

Failure of (lections, issued its May -7, +664 Order suspending the procla$ation of the

%inning gubernatorial candidate of *ulu, but lifted the suspension three .9/ days later" &n

the May +6, +664 lifting Order, the !OM()(! *econd 8ivision directed the *ulu 'BO!

to co$plete the canvass of votes and =to bring all canvass docu$ents to Manila, and to

proclai$ the %inning candidates for >overnor in Manila"=

(ven before the filing of the four .4/ aforesaid petitions, 0bdusa5ur M" Tan had filed four

.4/ other petitions, one before the Municipal Board of !anvassers of 'arang, *ulu for

the e2clusion of election returns fro$ several precincts doc5eted as *'0 No" 64-91,



and the other three before the 'rovincial Board of !anvassers of *ulu to e2clude

certificates of canvass fro$ )uu5, 'ana$ao, and 'arang doc5eted as *'0 Nos" 64-9,

64-4 and 64-?, respectively" 0ll these petitions %ere dis$issed by the Boards

concerned, pro$pting petitioner Tan to file an appeal %ith the !OM()(! First 8ivision

%hich issued an Order on May +4, +664 directing the concerned boards of canvassers

to suspend their proceedings and to refrain fro$ proclai$ing any %inning candidate"

(ven before the filing of the four .4/ aforesaid petitions, 0bdusa5ur M" Tan had filed four

.4/ other petitions, one before the Municipal Board of !anvassers of 'arang, *ulu for

the e2clusion of election returns fro$ several precincts doc5eted as *'0 No" 64-91,

and the other three before the 'rovincial Board of !anvassers of *ulu to e2clude

certificates of canvass fro$ )uu5, 'ana$ao, and 'arang doc5eted as *'0 Nos" 64-9,

64-4 and 64-?, respectively" 0ll these petitions %ere dis$issed by the Boards

concerned, pro$pting petitioner Tan to file an appeal %ith the !OM()(! First 8ivision

%hich issued an Order on May +4, +664 directing the concerned boards of canvassersto suspend their proceedings and to refrain fro$ proclai$ing any %inning candidate"

Ho%ever, on the sa$e day that the !OM()(! First 8ivision issued the said Order,

private respondent Benja$in )oong %as proclai$ed the %inning governor of *ulu and

he assu$ed office" This pro$pted petitioner Tan to file a 'etition for 0nnul$ent of the

'rocla$ation %ith the !OM()(! First 8ivision

On <une +-, +664, the !OM()(! First 8ivision issued an Order %hich granted the

petition and annulled the procla$ation of respondent )oong as governor of *ulu

'rovince"

on <uly -, +664, respondent ;usop H" <i5iri filed before the !OM()(! a 'etition of

'rotest Ad Cautelam doc5eted as ('! No" +664 praying, inter alia, for the recount

or revision of the ballots cast and the e2a$ination of election returns in four .4/

$unicipalities of *ulu, na$ely, )uu5, Tong5il, Mai$bung, and 'arang"

The !OM()(! en banc, dis$issed all five .?/ petitions" This pro$pted respondebt

<i5iri to i$$ediately convert his petition ad cautelam into a regular election protest

%hich %as granted by the !OM()(! First 8ivisinn"

The !OM()(! held that none of the grounds relied upon by petitioners fall under any

of the three instances justifying a declaration of failure of election" First, the !OM()(!

found that based upon the evidence presented by the parties, a valid election %as held

as scheduled" *econd, there %as no suspension of the election as voting continued

nor$ally" Third, private respondent )oong %as elected by a plurality of votes as

proclai$ed by the 'rovincial Board of !anvassers .'B!/"



!iting Grand Alliance for Democracy v. COMELEC , the !OM()(! en banc ruled that

the grounds raised by petitioners %ere best ventilated in an election protest"

The !OM()(! did not give credence to petitioners@ evidence in support of their

allegations of fraud and terroris$ since their evidence consisted $ainly of affidavits

e2ecuted by their o%n poll %atchers" The !o$$ission considered the affidavits self

serving and insufficient to annul the results of the election" Besides, it pointed out that

petitioners presented only a single affidavit of an alleged disenfranchised voter" Thus,

on October -1, +664, the !OM()(!, through a <oint Resolution, dis$issed the

petitions for lac5 of $erit" 'etitioners@ counsel received a copy of the <oint Resolution on

October +-, +664"

Ho%ever, the <oint Resolution %as not concurred in by !OM()(! !o$$issioner Mehol

A" *adain %ho signed it %ith a note: 8&**(NTN>" 8&**(NT&N> O'&N&ON TO

FO))O#"C He sub$itted his dissenting opinion on Nove$ber +9, +664 or 9 days after

the joint resolution %as issued"

'etitioners Tan and Burahan $aintain that the 96day regle$entary period to file the

petition for certiorari only started to run on Nove$ber +4, +664, the day they received a

copy of the Nove$ber +9, +664 8issenting Opinion, %hich co$pleted the <oint

Resolution" Moreover, they contend that the assailed October -1, +664 <oint Resolution

received by petitioners on October +-, +664 %as inco$plete since the sole 8issenting

Opinion %as %ithheld and they could not intelligently and reasonably file the instant

petition %ithout it"

On the other hand, both the Office of the *olicitor >eneral .O*>/ and private

respondent )oong strongly assert that the instant petition %as filed out of ti$e as the

start of the regle$entary period to file the appeal $ust be counted fro$ the receipt of

the October -1, +664 <oint ResolutionDsince it is the judg$ent and not the *adain

8issenting Opinion being assailed" They also point out that the %ithheld 8issenting

Opinion is only !o$$issioner *adain@s vie% and, thus, neither is it essential to nor does

it affect the ruling of the !OM()(! en banc "

*ue)

-" #hether or not the 96day regle$entary period $ust be rec5oned fro$ the receiptof the decision order and not fro$ the receipt of a dissenting opinion issued 9 dayslater"

+" #hether or not the disenfranch$ent of voters as a ground not raised belo% can beraised on appeal"

9" #hether or not there %as failure of elections in the four .4/ subject $unicipalities"



4" +e(er or no( (e COMELEC a -urd'(on (o en(er(an ele'(oral /ro(e(led beyond (en 10 day a(er (e /ro'la&a(on o (e reul( o an ele'(onor a gven /rovn'al o'e.

3eld)

-" The 96day regle$entary period $ust be rec5oned fro$ the receipt of thedecision, order or resolution and not fro$ the receipt of a dissenting opinionissued later"

4e'(on 1. 'rocedure in Ma5ing 8ecisions.The conclusions of the !o$$issionin any case sub$itted to it for decision en banc or in 8ivision shall be reached inconsultation before the case is assigned by raffle to a Me$ber for the %riting of the opinion of the !o$$ission or the 8ivision and a certification to this effectsigned by the !hair$an or the 'residing !o$$issioner, as the case $ay be,

shall be incorporated in the decision" 0ny Me$ber %ho too5 no part, or dissented, or abstained fro$ a decision or resolution $ust state the reasontherefor"

4EC. $. (ach !o$$ission shall de'de by a &a-or(y vo(e o all ( Me&berany case or $atter brought before it %ithin si2ty days fro$ the date of itssub$ission for decision or resolution" 0 case or $atter is dee$ed sub$itted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or $e$orandu$re3uired by the rules of the !o$$ission or by the !o$$ission itself" Enlessother%ise provided by this !onstitution or by la%, any de'on, order, or rulngo ea' Co&&on &ay be broug( (o (e 4u/re&e Cour( on certiorari by

the aggrieved party %ithin thirty days fro$ receipt of a copy thereof"

There is nothing fro$ the above constitutional proviso nor in the !OM()(!Rules of 'rocedure that re3uires the sub$ission of a dissenting opinion before adecision or resolution concurred by the re3uired $ajority is validly rendered, i"e"co$plete" 'ut other%ise, %ith the re3uired $ajority vote, the $ajority opinione$bodied in a decision or resolution duly pro$ulgated is validly rendered andissued despite dissent or inhibition of the $inority, and even if the reason for thedissent or inhibition is sub$itted $uch later than its pro$ulgation"

The dissenting opinion, %hich is only !o$$issioner *adain@s vie%, is not

essential to nor does it affect the ruling of the !OM()(! en banc " *eparateopinions not approved by the re3uired $ajority of the court $e$bers, %hether they be concurring or dissenting opinions, $ust be distinguished fro$ the opinionof the court" The joint resolution is the ruling being assailed and not thedissenting opinion" &t is clear that, not being essential to the assailed jointresolution, the dissenting opinion $erely serves to co$ply %ith the constitutionalproviso that any $e$ber %ho dissented fro$ a decision or resolution $ust statethe reason therefor"



&n the instant case, the dissenting opinion %as sub$itted and pro$ulgated 9days after the assailed joint resolution" 'etition filed out of ti$e"

The *upre$e !ourt also declared *ec 9- and *ec 4+ of !OM()(! Rules of

'rocedure Enconstitutional" The dissenting opinion duly noted to follo%C in jointresolution is an e2tended reserved opinion"

+" No" The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual 3uestion $ay not be raisedfor the first ti$e on appeal,and docu$ents for$ing no part of the proofs beforethe appellate court %ill not be considered in disposing of the issues of anaction"This is true %hether the decision elevated for revie% originated fro$ aregular court or an ad$inistrative agency or 3uasijudicial body, and %hether it%as rendered in a civil case, a special proceeding, or a cri$inal case" 'iece$ealpresentation of evidence is si$ply not in accord %ith orderly justice"

9" No" Ender Republic 0ct No" 7-, other%ise 5no%n as =The *ynchronied(lections )a% of --,= the !OM()(! en banc is e$po%ered to declare a

1 Section 3. When Extended Opinion Reserved.—When in a given resolution or

decision the writing of an extended opinion is reserved, the extended opinion shall

be released within fteen (15) das after the pro!ulgation of the resolution"

# Section 4. $eriod to %ppeal or &ile 'otion for Reconsideration When Extended

Opinion is Reserved"f an extended opinion is reserved in a decision or resolution,

the period to le a petition for certiorari with the *upre!e +ourt or to le a !otion

for reconsideration shall begin to run onl fro! the date the aggrieved part

received a cop of the extended opinion"



failure of election under *ection 9 of the O$nibus (lection !ode" *ection of the !ode prescribes the conditions for the e2ercise of this po%er

Three .9/ instances justify the declaration of failure of election:

.a/ the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fi2ed on account offorce maeure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or other analogous causesG

.b/ the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fi2ed by la%

for the closing of the voting on account of force maeure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or

other analogous causesG or

.c/ after the voting and during the preparation and trans$ission of the election returns or

in the custody or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect on account of

force maeure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or other analogous causes

&n these three .9/ instances, there $ust be a resulting failure to elect" 0s stated in

Banaga, <r" v" !o$$ission on (lections, =this is obvious in the first t%o scenarios,

%here the election %as not held and %here the election %as suspended"= 0s to the third

scenario, %here the preparation and the trans$ission of the election returns give rise to

the conse3uence of failure to elect $ust, as $entioned earlier, be interpreted to $ean

that nobody e$erged as a %inner"

4" No" the i$putation of grave abuse of discretion, on the part of respondent!OM()(!@s First 8ivision, in refusing to dis$iss respondent <i5iri@s 'etition of

'rotest Ad Cautelam .('! No" +664/ on the stated ground that he filed thesa$e after the lapse of the period for filing an election protest is untenable since,as events unfolded, petitions %ere filed May -7, +664"

*ection -" &ailure of Election"f, on account of force majeure, violence, terroris!,

fraud or other analogous causes.,/ the election in an polling place has not been

held on the date xed, or had been suspended before the hour xed b law for

closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the

trans!ission of the election returns or in the custod or canvass thereof, such

election results in a failure to elect, and in an of such cases the failure or

suspension of election would a0ect the result of the election, the +o!!ission shall,

on the basis of a veried petition b an interested part and after due notice and

hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or

which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonabl close to the date of the

election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than

thirt das after the cessation of the cause of such postpone!ent or suspension of

the election or failure to elect"



Regle$entary periods, perhaps, li5e any rule issued by judicial and 3uasijudicialbodies, are prescribed to ensure stability in the ad$inistration of justice, as %ellas to pro$ote substantive justice" They should be disregarded %hen they poseobstruction to the attain$ent of such lofty ends, %hich, in electionrelated cases,as here, is the deter$ination of the popular %ill"

4an(o v. COMELEC, e( al.>"R" No" -??-1 March +, +669

FCT4)

'etitioner (dgar *antos and respondent 'edro 'anulaya %ere both candidates for Mayor of the Municipality of Balingoan, Misa$is Oriental in the May -4, +66- elections"The Municipal Board of !anvassers proclai$ed respondent 'anulaya as the dulyelected Mayor" 'etitioner filed an election protest before the lo%er court" 0fter trial andrevision of the ballots, the trial court found that petitioner garnered +,-1- votes %hilerespondent received only +,-6?" Hence, it rendered judg$ent declaring and proclai$ingpetitioner as the duly elected Municipal Mayor, and setting aside as null and void theprocla$ation of respondent $ade by the Municipal Board of !anvassers"

'etitioner thereafter filed a $otion for e2ecution pending appeal" Mean%hile,before the trial court could act on petitioner@s $otion, respondent filed %ith the!OM()(! a petition for certiorari, assailing the decision of the trial court" )i5e%ise,respondent appealed the trial court@s decision to the !OM()(!"

The !OM()(! issued a #rit of 'reli$inary &njunction, %hich effectively enjoinedthe trial court fro$ acting on petitioner@s $otion for e2ecution pending appeal"



*ubse3uently, the !OM()(! dis$issed petitioner@s petition for certiorari after findingthat the trial court did not co$$it grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed

judg$ent" Moreover, the !OM()(! held that the re$edy fro$ the decision of the courta 3uo %as to file a notice of appeal" Hence, it directed the trial court to dispose of allpending incidents in the election protest %ith dispatch" The trial court issued an Order

approving the Motion for (2ecution 'ending 0ppeal and installing petitioner as the dulyelected Mayor"

Mean%hile, respondent filed %ith the !OM()(! a $otion for reconsideration of the dis$issal of his petition in *'R No" +6+66+" 0fter five days, or on 0ugust +, +66+,he filed a supple$ental petition in *'R No" +6+66+" Barely t%o days later, on 0ugust+1, +66+, and %hile his $otion for reconsideration and supple$ental petition in *'R No"+6+66+ %ere pending, respondent filed another petition %ith the !OM()(!, doc5etedas *'R No" 97+66+" The petition contained the sa$e prayer as that in thesupple$ental petition filed in *'R +6+66+" 0cting on respondent@s $otion, the!OM()(! issued the assailed Order directing the parties to $aintain the status 3uo

ante and enjoining petitioner fro$ assu$ing the functions of Mayor"

*447E)

%hether or not the !OM()(! co$$itted grave abuse of discretion in giving duecourse, instead of dis$issing outright, the petition in *'R No" 97+66+ despite the clear sho%ing that respondent %as guilty of foru$shopping, and in setting aside the trialcourt@s order granting e2ecution pending appeal

3EL8)

;es" &t is at once apparent fro$ the records, as sho%n above, that respondent%as guilty of foru$shopping %hen he instituted *'R No" 97+66+ %ith the !OM()(!"Foru$shopping is an act of a party against %ho$ an adverse judg$ent or order hasbeen rendered in one foru$ of see5ing and possibly getting a favorable opinion inanother foru$, other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari" &t $ay also bethe institution of t%o or $ore actions or proceedings grounded on the sa$e cause onthe supposition that one or the other court %ould $a5e a favorable disposition" For it toe2ist, there should be .a/ identity of parties, or at least such parties as %ould representthe sa$e interest in both actionsG .b/ identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, therelief being founded on the sa$e factsG and .c/ identity of the t%o preceding particularssuch that any judg$ent rendered in the other action %ill, regardless of %hich party issuccessful, a$ount to res judicata in the action under consideration" !onsidering thatrespondent %as indubitably guilty of foru$shopping %hen he filed *'R No" 97+66+,his petition should have been dis$issed outright by the !OM()(!" #illful anddeliberate foru$shopping is a ground for su$$ary dis$issal of the case, andconstitutes direct conte$pt of court"



!OM()(!@s act of setting aside the trial court@s order granting e2ecution pendingappeal is pre$ised on the argu$ent that shortness of the re$aining ter$ of office andposting a bond are not good reasons" This is untenable" 0 valid e2ercise of thediscretion to allo% e2ecution pending appeal re3uires that it should be based upon goodreasons to be stated in a special order" The follo%ing constitute good reasons and a

co$bination of t%o or $ore of the$ %ill suffice to grant e2ecution pending appeal: .-/public interest involved or %ill of the electorateG .+/ the shortness of the re$ainingportion of the ter$ of the contested officeG and .9/ the length of ti$e that the electioncontest has been pending"

The decision of the trial court in election protest %as rendered on 0pril +, +66+, or after al$ost one year of trial and revision of the 3uestioned ballots" &t found petitioner asthe candidate %ith the plurality of votes" Respondent appealed the said decision to the!OM()(!" &n the $eanti$e, the threeyear ter$ of the Office of the Mayor continued torun" The %ill of the electorate, as deter$ined by the trial court in the election protest,had to be respected and given $eaning" The Municipality of Balingoan, Misa$is

Oriental, needed the services of a $ayor even %hile the election protest %as pending,and it had to be the candidate judicially deter$ined to have been chosen by the people"

oe/ :e(er 4on v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1"!096, Mar' ", 1999

Facts: &t appears that %hile the election returns %ere being canvassed by the ueon !ityBoard of !anvassers but before the %inning candidates %ere proclai$ed, petitioner co$$enced suit before the !OM()(! by filing a petition see5ing to suspend thecanvassing of votes andIor procla$ation in ueon !ity and to declare a failure of elections" The said petition %as supposedly filed pursuant to *ection 9 of the O$nibus(lection !ode .Batas 'a$bansa Blg" 11-, as a$ended/ on the ground o ;&aveand or'e(ra(ed raud and a'( analogou (ere(o <' o''urred a(er (evo(ng and durng (e /re/ara(on o ele'(on re(urn and n (e 'u(ody or 'anva (ereo, <' reul(ed n a alure (o ele'(.;4#hile the petition %as pending before the !OM()(!, the !ity Board of !anvassersproclai$ed the %inners of the elections in ueon !ity, including the %inning candidatefor the post of vice $ayor" On <une ++, -1, the !OM()(! pro$ulgated itschallenged resolution dis$issing the petition before it on the ground .-/ that theallegations therein %ere not supported by sufficient evidence, and .+/ the grounds



recited %ere not a$ong the preprocla$ation issues set forth in *ection -7 of Republic 0ct No" 7-

&ssue: #hether or not the grounds are valid

Ruling: Ender the pertinent codal provision of the O$nibus (lection !ode, there are only three.9/ instances %here a failure of elections $ay be declared, na$ely: .a/ the election inany polling place has not been held on the date fi2ed on account of force $ajeure,violence, terroris$, fraud, or other analogous causesG .b/ the election in any pollingplace had been suspended before the hour fi2ed by la% for the closing of the voting onaccount of force $ajeure, violence, terroris$, fraud, or other analogous causesG or .c/after the voting and during the preparation and trans$ission of the election returns or inthe custody or canvass thereof such election result in a failure to elect on account of force $ajuere, violence, terroris$ , fraud, or other analogous causes" #e havepainsta5ingly e2a$ined /e((oner= /e((on beore (e COMELEC bu( ound

no(ng (eren (a( 'ould u//or( an a'(on or de'lara(on o alure o ele'(on.3e never alleged a( all (a( ele'(on <ere e(er no( eld or u/ended.Fur(er&ore, /e((oner= 'la& o alure (o ele'( (ood a a bare 'on'luonbere( o any ub(an(ve u//or( (o de'rbe -u( e>a'(ly o< (e alure (o ele'('a&e abou(.

Documents

Sison Tan Regalado Santos