Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > September 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-59593 September 24, 1983 - FRANCISCO B. ASUNCION, JR. v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO

209 Phil. 597:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-59593. September 24, 1983.]

FRANCISCO B. ASUNCION, JR., Petitioner, v. HONORABLE ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, Villasis Pangasinan, and MAYOR LAUREANO S. PEREZ, Respondents.

Asuncion Law Office for Petitioner.

Teodoro P. Regino for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ELECTIONS; ELECTION CONTESTS; PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM PROCLAMATION; SETTLED RULE. — The Election Code grants the right to a voter "contesting the election of any officer on the wound of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines (to) file a petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of his election." (Sec. 189 of the 1978 Election Code) There is no getting away from the explicit mandate of the law. A ten-day period is set forth. It must he obeyed. This Court has reiterated time and time again the principle that when the statute speaks clearly and unequivocally, there is no room for interpretation. It must be applied as worded.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The infirmity, fatal in character, that argues against the reversal of an order of dismissal by respondent Judge, Rosalio C. Segundo, of a quo warranto suit on the ground of ineligibility, is quite apparent from the motion to dismiss of private respondent Laureano S. Perez. It was alleged, and correctly so, that the action, if any, had prescribed. The concluding paragraph of such order of respondent Judge speaks for itself: "The Court, after considering all the issues raised by the pleadings of both petitioner and respondent and after hearing their arguments pro and con, is of the considered opinion that the instant case was, indeed, filed out of time and that this Court has no jurisdiction over the case." 1 The facts, as hereinafter disclosed, justify such a conclusion. Moreover, the applicable law is on the side of private Respondent. This certiorari petition lacks merit.chanrobles law library : red

The facts are clear. On July 15, 1981, petitioner filed a special civil action docketed in the sala of respondent Judge against private Respondent. 2 Then on July 29, 1981, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss with petitioner filing his opposition to such motion on August 12, 1981. 3 On September 8, 1981 the assailed order of respondent Judge was issued, dismissing such quo warranto suit. 4 There was a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. 5 In the motion to dismiss, it was pointed out that the proclamation of private respondent having been made on February 1, 1980, the period for filing a quo warranto suit in the ground of ineligibility should be within ten days from such a date. 6 As admitted in the petition, it was not until July 15, 1981 that this case was filed in the sala of respondent Judge. As pointed out in such order of dismissal: "Obviously, the petition should have been filed with the Commission on Elections and this should have been done within ten (10) days after proclamation of the election of the respondent on February 1, 1980." 7

The law is equally clear. The Election Code grants the right to a voter "contesting the election of any officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines [to] file a petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of his election." 8 There is no getting away from the explicit mandate of the law. A ten-day period is set forth. It must be obeyed. This Court has reiterated time and time again the principle that when the statute speaks clearly and unequivocally, there is no room for interpretation. It must be applied as worded. 9 It is to be noted that there is a distinction between an election protest and a quo warranto suit on ground of ineligibility. 10 This Court has even gone as far as holding that an action for quo warranto cannot be converted into an election protest. 11 It may not be amiss to state that under the former Election Code, 12 the period granted is limited to one week or seven days, 13 not ten days as now provided. Then as well as now, however, whatever period is prescribed must be followed to the letter. It is as simple as that.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, this certiorari petition is dismissed for lack of merit, and the order of dismissal issued by respondent Judge in Special Civil Case No. U-3667 dated September 8, 1981 is affirmed. No costs.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., I concur on the basis of Sec. 190 of the 1978 Election Code.

Teehankee, Jr., took no part.

De Castro, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Order of respondent Judge, Annex D to Petition, 3.

2. Petition, par. 2 and Annex A to Petition.

3. Ibid, pars. 3 and 4, and Annexes B and C to Petition.

4. Ibid, par. 5 and Annex D to Petition.

5. Ibid, pars. 6 and 7, and Annex E and F to Petition.

6. In the motion to dismiss, the 10-day period was counted up to February 10, 1980. That is a mistake. It should be February 11, 1980.

7. Order of respondent Judge, Annex D to Petition, 2.

8. Section 189 of the 1978 Election Code.

9. Cf. Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. Manila Railroad Co., L-25316, Feb. 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 616. The opinion cited 13 cases starting from People v. Mapa, L-22301, Aug. 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 1164 to Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, L-27455, June 28, 1973, 51 SCRA 381. After the Manggagawa decision came two later cases of the same tenor: Banawa v. Mirano, L-24750, May 16, 1980, 97 SCRA 517; Insular Lumber Co. v. Court of Tax Appeals, L-31057, May 29, 1981, 104 SCRA 710.

10. Cf. De la Rosa v. Yanson, 62 Phil. 446 (1928); Pacal v. Ramos, 81 Phil. 30 (1948); Gorospe v. Peñaflorida, 101 Phil. 886 (1957).

11. Cf. Luison v. Garcia, 103 Phil. 453 (1958); Sanchez v. del Rosario, 111 Phil. 733 (1961); Republic v. Corpin, 104 Phil. 49 (1958); Campus and Oroc v. Degamo and Palarca, 116 Phil. 541 (1962).

12. Section 173, Republic Act No. 180 (1947).

13. Section 189, Election Code of 1978.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30811 September 2, 1983 - ANTONIO A. NIEVA v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION

    209 Phil. 361

  • G.R. No. L-32521 September 2, 1983 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GUARDSON R. LOOD

  • G.R. No. L-33929 September 2, 1983 - PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

    209 Phil. 382

  • G.R. No. L-37748 September 2, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUERRERO ALMEDA

    209 Phil. 393

  • G.R. No. L-54958 September 2, 1983 - ANGLO-FIL TRADING CORPORATION v. HON. ALFREDO LAZARO

    09 Phil. 400

  • G.R. No. L-55212 September 2, 1983 - SATURNINO DOMINGO v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

    209 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-56576 September 2, 1983 - ZENAIDA SANTARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    209 Phil. 455

  • G.R. No. L-58164 September 2, 1983 - JOSE GUERRERO v. ST. CLARE’S REALTY CO., LTD.

    209 Phil. 459

  • G.R. No. L-58476 September 2, 1983 - FERNANDO ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-62961 September 2, 1983 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    209 Phil. 480

  • G.R. No. L-63723 September 2, 1983 - SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

    209 Phil. 484

  • G.R. No. L-36446 September 9, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN C. MAGUDDATU

    209 Phil. 489

  • G.R. No. L-56864 September 15, 1983 - ROQUE GABAYAN v. EXALTACION A. NAVARRO

    209 Phil. 497

  • G.R. No. L-64183 September 15, 1983 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

    209 Phil. 500

  • G.R. No. L-28772 September 21, 1983 - ASSOCIATION OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC. v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC

    209 Phil. 505

  • G.R. No. L-53830 September 21, 1983 - SILVESTRE ESPAÑOL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55943 September 21, 1983 - EUGENIO JUAN GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-56076 September 21, 1983 - PALAY, INC. v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    209 Phil. 523

  • G.R. No. L-58575 September 21, 1983 - CESAR JARDIEL v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    209 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-60073 September 23, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NENITO C. FERRER

    209 Phil. 546

  • G.R. No. L-60990 September 23, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GACHO

    209 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39502 September 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI IBANGA

    209 Phil. 567

  • G.R. No. L-39743 September 24, 1983 - JUSTINIANO CAJIUAT v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

    209 Phil. 579

  • G.R. No. L-47724 September 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO A. MARANAN

    209 Phil. 585

  • G.R. No. L-59593 September 24, 1983 - FRANCISCO B. ASUNCION, JR. v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO

    209 Phil. 597

  • G.R. No. L-39746 September 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINO B. SAN MIGUEL

    209 Phil. 600

  • A.C. No. 2251 September 29, 1983 - FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. VICTORIA C. MANGAPIT

    209 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-29822 September 29, 1983 - JOSE T. JAMANDRE v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC.

    209 Phil. 612

  • G.R. No. L-36530 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN JERVOSO

    209 Phil. 616

  • G.R. No. L-40445 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONALD MOSQUERA

    209 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-46418 September 29, 1983 - CHACON ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 634

  • G.R. No. L-47437 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAMELO O. MARIANO

    209 Phil. 651

  • G.R. No. L-48290 September 29, 1983 - NATY CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 656

  • G.R. No. L-50523 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. AQUINO

    209 Phil. 681

  • G.R. No. L-56135 September 29, 1983 - RICARDO CORTEZ v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON

    209 Phil. 707

  • G.R. No. L-60898 September 29, 1983 - GAUDENCIO R. MABUTOL v. ARTURO B. PASCUAL

    209 Phil. 710

  • G.R. No. L-61643 September 29, 1983 - LUZVIMINDA V. LIPATA v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

    209 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-30442 September 30, 1983 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. UNION CARBIDE PHILIPPINES, INC.

    209 Phil. 723

  • G.R. No. L-35000 September 30, 1983 - SALUD YOUNG v. OLIVIA YOUNG

    209 Phil. 727

  • G.R. No. L-37788 September 30, 1983 - ARTEMIO CASTILLO v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORP.

    209 Phil. 728

  • G.R. No. L-38644 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MOSTOLES, JR.

    209 Phil. 734

  • G.R. No. L-48255 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIELITO DEMETERIO

    209 Phil. 742

  • G.R. No. L-50476 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANDO SIMBULAN

    209 Phil. 753

  • G.R. No. L-62945 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO DE CASTRO

    209 Phil. 761

  • G.R. No. L-64250 September 30, 1983 - SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUIS L. VICTOR

    209 Phil. 764