ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 128822 May 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO PASUDAG

  • G.R. No. 147571 May 5, 2001 - SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129285 May 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PALABRICA

  • G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001 - ANTONIO BENGSON III v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145401 May 7, 2001 - MANUEL L. ONTIVEROS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106028 May 9, 2001 - LILIA Y. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106763 May 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109087 May 9, 2001 - RODZSSEN SUPPLY CO. INC. v. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO.

  • G.R. No. 110203 May 9, 2001 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138556 May 9, 2001 - PIGLAS-KAMAO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139961 May 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO TOLEDO SR.

  • G.R. No. 143616 May 9, 2001 - NEGROS ORIENTAL ELECTRIC COOP. 1 v. SECRETARY OF THE DOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 144261-62 May 9, 2001 - PRUDENTE D. SOLLER, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1400 May 10, 2001 - MANUEL M. ROSALES v. GIL STA. ANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132662 May 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE HINDOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134129 May 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON SALIPDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138235 May 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PALERO

  • G.R. No. 147741 May 10, 2001 - MA. CATALINA L. GO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 147780, 147781, 147799 & 147810 May 10, 2001 - PANFILO LACSON, ET AL. v. HERNANDO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-5-162-RTC May 11, 2001 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC

  • G.R. No. 133997 May 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIXBERTO ABALLE

  • G.R. No. 138451 May 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO REPIROGA

  • G.R. No. 114231 May 18, 2001 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NELIA A. BARLIS

  • G.R. No. 119679 May 18, 2001 - ALFREDO AND SUSANA BUOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 4215 May 21, 2001 - FELICISIMO M. MONTANO v. INTEGRATED BAR of the PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056 May 21, 2001 - INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN v. AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 116280 May 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO DUMAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123547 May 21, 2001 - DANTE MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123892 May 21, 2001 - JASMIN SOLER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130366 May 21, 2001 - LILIA T. AARON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132247 May 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO F. LOBRIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134294 May 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO VILLALOBOS

  • G.R. No. 136825 May 21, 2001 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO v. JULIANA MONTEVERDE-CONSUNJI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138780 May 22, 2001 - NORBERTO ORCULLO, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 01-1-01-SC May 23, 2001 - IN RE: SONIA LLAMAS-TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132364 May 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALVERO

  • G.R. No. 136737 May 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BEN LIBO-ON

  • G.R. No. 138983 May 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENER B. AGONCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 130144 & 130502-03 May 24, 2001 - MELECIA PAÑA, ET AL. v. FLORIPINAS C. BUYSER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137048 May 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTRO GERABAN

  • G.R. No. 139552 May 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO REBATO

  • G.R. No. 143389 May 25, 2001 - PFIZER INC. ET AL. v. EDWIN V. GALAN

  • G.R. No. 110131 May 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DEACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 110340 May 28, 2001 - WESTERN SHIPYARD SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112990 May 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEMUEL COMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112661 May 30, 2001 - SIMEON DE LEON, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112710 May 30, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137051-52 May 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALDESANCHO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1563 May 31, 2001 - ROSEMARIE LATORRE v. LEONARDO P. ANSALDO

  • G.R. No. 116488 May 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AARON FLORES

  • G.R. No. 116941 May 31, 2001 - TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128466 May 31, 2001 - REMEGIO P. YU, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130627 & 139477-78 May 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUEDA T. ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142295 May 31, 2001 - VICENTE DEL ROSARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 147741   May 10, 2001 - MA. CATALINA L. GO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 147741. May 10, 2001.]

    REP. MA. CATALINA L. GO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FELIPE V. MONTEJO and ARVIN V. ANTONI, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    The Case


    In her petition for certiorari, 1 petitioner seeks to nullify the resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc declaring her disqualified to run for the office of governor of Leyte and mayor of Baybay, Leyte, because she filed certificates of candidacy for both positions and the withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for mayor was filed late by twenty eight minutes from the deadline.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Forthwith, we issued an order 2 to maintain the status quo ante, in effect allowing petitioner’s certificate of candidacy for governor in the meantime.

    In its Comment, 3 the COMELEC justified its resolution on the ground that petitioner’s affidavit of withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, Leyte was ineffectual because it was submitted twenty eight (28) minutes late at the office of the municipal election officer at Baybay. The facsimile copy thereof was filed with said office at 12:28 a.m., 1 March 2001, and the original copy thereof was actually received by the office of the municipal election officer of Baybay at 1:15 p. m., the same day. The provincial election supervisor of Leyte, with office at Tacloban City, to whom petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for governor at 11:47 p. m., 28 February 2001, refused to accept the affidavit of withdrawal tendered simultaneously therewith because, as he claimed, the affidavit must be filed with the office of the municipal election officer of Baybay, Leyte where petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for mayor.

    The Facts


    Petitioner is the incumbent representative of the Fifth District, province of Leyte, whose term of office will expire at noon on 30 June 2001.

    On 27 February 2001, petitioner filed with the municipal election officer of the municipality of Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, Leyte.

    On 28 February 2001, at 11:47 p.m., petitioner filed with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte, with office at Tacloban City, another certificate of candidacy for governor of the province of Leyte. Simultaneously therewith, she attempted to file with the provincial election supervisor an affidavit of withdrawal of her candidacy for mayor of the municipality of Baybay, Leyte. However, the provincial election supervisor of Leyte refused to accept the affidavit of withdrawal and suggested that, pursuant to a COMELEC resolution, she should file it with the municipal election officer of Baybay, Leyte where she filed her certificate of candidacy for mayor.

    At that late hour, with only minutes left to midnight, the deadline for filing certificates of candidacy or withdrawal thereof, and considering that the travel time from Tacloban to Baybay was two (2) hours, petitioner decided to send her affidavit of withdrawal by fax 4 to her father at Baybay, Leyte and the latter submitted the same to the office of the election officer of Baybay, Leyte at 12:28 a. m., 01 March 2001. 5 On the same day, at 1:15 p.m., the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, received the original of the affidavit of withdrawal. 6

    On 05 March 2001, respondent Montejo filed with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte, at Tacloban City a petition to deny due course and/or to cancel the certificates of candidacy of petitioner. 7 Respondent Antoni filed a similar petition to disqualify petitioner. 8 The petitions were based on the ground that petitioner filed certificates of candidacy for two positions, namely, that for mayor of Baybay, Leyte, and that for governor of Leyte, thus, making her ineligible for both.

    On 06 March 2001, Atty. Manuel L. Villegas, the provincial election supervisor of Leyte, by 1st indorsement, referred the cases to the Commission on Election, Manila, Law Department, on the ground that he was inhibiting himself due to his prior action of refusing to receive the petitioner’s affidavit of withdrawal tendered simultaneously with the filing of the certificate of candidacy for governor on 28 February 2001. 9

    In the meantime, the Law Department, COMELEC, under Director Jose P. Balbuena, made a study of the cases without affording petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to submit responsive pleadings. On 05 April 2001, they submitted a report and recommendation to the COMELEC en banc. 10

    The report and recommendation reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Submitted for due consideration is the petition filed by Atty. Felipe V. Montejo and Atty. Arvin V. Antoni on March 5, 2001, before the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte, seeking to deny due course and/or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Catalina L. Go for Governor of Leyte.

    "Both petitions which are exactly worded in the same language allege, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘This petition is heretofore filed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE and Section 15, as well, of RESOLUTION NO. 3253-A of the COMELEC EN BANC promulgated on November 20, 2000. Ditto, this petition is filed within the reglementary period following the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy on February 28, 2001.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    ‘Petitioner Atty. Felipe V. Montejo is of voting age, Filipino, lawyer by profession, married, and a resident of #50 Juan Luna Street, Tacloban City, of which locality he is a registered voter.

    ‘Respondent re. Catalina L. Go, on the other hand, is likewise of legal age, married, resident of Baybay, Leyte, of which locality she is a registered voter, and the incumbent Member of the House of Representatives representing the 5th Congressional District of Leyte.

    ‘Respondent CATALINA L. GO filed a certificate of candidacy for the office of Mayor of the Municipality of Baybay, Leyte on February 27, 2001. Without cancelling or withdrawing the said certificate of candidacy this time for the office of Provincial Governor of Leyte on February 28, 2001. However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, respondent indubitably failed to declare under oath the office for which she desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office.

    ‘Verily, at the time respondent filed her certificate of candidacy for Provincial Governor, she knew fully well that she was ineligible for the said office, having filed, a day earlier, a certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte. Hence, respondent falsely represented in her certificate of candidacy for Provincial Governor, and under oath, that she is ELIGIBLE for the said office; a material fact required by law to be sworn to and contained in certificates of candidacy. In fine, respondent likewise falsely represented in her certificates of candidacy, under oath, that she will OBEY THE LAWS, ORDERS, DECREES, RESOLUTIONS AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED AND ISSUED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES; a material fact required by law to be sworn to and contained in certificates of candidacy.’

    "Petitioners’ ground to deny due course and/or to cancel the said certificate of candidacy is anchored on Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code, quoted hereunder.

    ‘No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.

    ‘No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he, shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.’

    "In relation to Section (1) (b) of the Comelec Resolution No. 325-A, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘SECTION 1. Certificate of Candidacy. . . . . . (b) No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election. If he files a certificate of candidacy for more than one office he shall not be eligible for either. However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificate of candidacy, he may declare under oath the office for which he desire to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the office or offices.’

    "Moreover, petitioners contended that CATALINA LOPEZ LORETO-GO is ineligible to run for either Mayor of Baybay, Leyte or Governor of Leyte Province.

    "Based on the certified list of candidate for the provincial candidates of Leyte on March 7, 2001, the certificate of candidacy of Catalina Lopez Loreto-Go for the position of Governor of Leyte was filed with the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor on February 28, 2001 at 11:47 p.m. the last day for filing certificates of candidacy.

    "In support of the petitions of Atty. Montejo and Atty. Antoni, is a certified machine copy of the affidavit of withdrawal of Catalina L. Loreto-Go, which was filed on March 01, 2001 at the Office of the Election Officer of Baybay, Leyte, which she filed on February 28, 2001.

    "The affidavit of withdrawal of Catalina Loreto-Go, a portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That last February 27, 2001 I filed my certificate of candidacy for Mayor for the MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, LEYTE;

    "2. That due to political exigency and influence from my political leaders urging me to run for Mayor of the Municipality of Baybay, Leyte, I have no other recourse but to follow desire of my political constituents;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "3. That therefore, I am formally withdrawing my certificate of candidacy for Mayor of the Municipality of Baybay, Leyte and in it stead I am formally filing my certificate for Governor of Leyte.

    "A careful scrutiny and examination of Catalina Loreto-Go certificate of candidacy for Governor of Leyte Province, although filed on the last day of February 28, 2001, her affidavit of withdrawal for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte, was filed only on March 1, 2001 or one (1) day after the February 28, 2001 deadline. In other word, there are two (2) certificates of candidacy filed by Catalina Loreto-Go, one for governor of Leyte and the other for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte.

    "Clearly, on March 1, 2001 when she filed her affidavit of withdrawal for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte, both her certificates of candidacy for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte and Governor of Leyte were still subsisting and effective making her liable for filing two certificates of candidacy on different elective positions, thus, rendering her ineligible for both positions, in accordance with Section (1) (b) of Comelec Resolution No. 3253-A.

    "PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Law Department RECOMMENDS as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1.) To give due course to the petition of Atty. Felipe V. Montejo and Atty. Arvin .V. Antonio against the certificates of candidacy of Catalina Loreto-Go for Governor of Leyte; and

    "2.) To direct the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte and the Election Officer to delete/cancel the name of CATALINA LOPEZ LORETO-GO from the certified list of candidates for Governor of Leyte and Mayoralty candidates of Baybay, Leyte, and to accordingly notify the parties and the above-named Comelec Officials." 11

    On 23 April 2001, the COMELEC en banc approved the recommendation of the Director, Law Department and adopted the resolution in question as set out in the opening paragraph of this decision. 12

    Hence, this petition. 13

    The Issues


    At the oral argument on 07 May 2001, at 3:00 p m., we defined the following issues to be addressed by the parties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I. Is petitioner disqualified to be candidate for governor of Leyte and mayor of Baybay, Leyte because she filed certificates of candidacy for both positions?

    II. Was there a valid withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Baybay, Leyte?

    (a) Must the affidavit of withdrawal be filed with the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was filed?

    (b) May the affidavit of withdrawal be validly filed by fax?

    II. Was there denial to petitioner of procedural due process of law?

    The Court’s Ruling


    We grant the petition. We annul the COMELEC resolution declaring petitioner disqualified for both positions of governor of Leyte and mayor of the municipality of Baybay, Leyte. The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, at 12:28 a.m., 1 March 2001 was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. 14 We hold that petitioner’s withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective for all legal purposes, and left in full force her certificate of candidacy for governor. 15

    Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 73. Certificate of candidacy. — No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written declaration under oath.

    "No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices."cralaw virtua1aw library

    There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with the main office of the COMELEC, the office of the regional election director concerned, the office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality involved belongs, or the office of the municipal election officer of the said municipality.

    While it may be true that Section 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, adopted on 20 November 2000, requires that the withdrawal be filed before the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was filed, 16 such requirement is merely directory, and is intended for convenience. It is not mandatory or jurisdictional. An administrative resolution can not contradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supply a deficiency in the law. 17 Hence, the filing of petitioner’s affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy for mayor of Baybay with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte sufficed to effectively withdraw such candidacy. The COMELEC thus acted with grave abuse of discretion when it declared petitioner ineligible for both positions for which she filed certificates of candidacy.

    There is another important moiety that affects the validity of the COMELEC resolution canceling petitioner’s certificates of candidacy. It is that petitioner was deprived of procedural due process of law. 18 The petition to cancel her certificate of candidacy or to deny due course to both were filed before the provincial election supervisor of Leyte who inhibited himself and referred the cases to the Law Department, COMELEC, Manila. On 11 April 2001, the COMELEC, First Division, acting on the first indorsement of Atty. Villegas approved his inhibition and required the provincial election supervisor of Leyte to immediately forward his copy of the records of these cases to the Regional Election Director, Region 08, at Tacloban, Leyte, for hearing. 19 On 18 April 2001, Regional Election Director, Region 08, Atty. Adolfo A. Ibañez issued summons/subpoena to petitioner Go to submit her consolidated answer to the petitions and counter-affidavits including position paper within three (3) days from notice. 20 On 23 April 2001, petitioner submitted her consolidated position paper. 21 On 25 April 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Director Ibañez set the cases for hearing for reception of evidence of the parties.

    In the meantime, however, the Law Department, COMELEC conducted an ex-parte study of the cases. It did not give petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner was not required to submit a comment or opposition to the petitions for cancellation of her certificates of candidacy and/or for disqualification. It did not set the cases for hearing. It was not even aware of the proceedings before Director Ibañez in Tacloban. After an ex-parte study of the cases, on 05 April 2001, the Law Department submitted its report and recommendation, approved by Director Balbuena, to the COMELEC en banc.

    During the oral argument on 07 May 2001, Director Balbuena candidly admitted that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires that notice be given to the Respondent. Indeed, Section 3, Rule 23 of said Rules on petition to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy explicitly provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Rule 23 — Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy

    "x       x       x

    "SECTION 3. Summary Proceeding. — The petition shall be heard summarily after due notice. (Emphasis supplied)chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Obviously, the COMELEC en banc in approving the report and recommendation of the Law Department, deprived the petitioner of procedural due process of law. 22 The COMELEC, acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving cases before it. 23

    WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Court ANNULS COMELEC Resolution No. 3982, adopted on 23 April 2001, and DECLARES valid petitioner’s certificate of candidacy for Governor of Leyte. The Chairman, Commission on Elections, Manila, and the provincial election supervisor of Leyte shall immediately order the inclusion of petitioner’s name in the certified list of candidates for Governor, province of Leyte, to be posted in each polling place/voting booth in every precinct throughout the province of Leyte, in the voters information sheet to be given to each registered voter therein, in the election returns, statement of votes by precincts, and certificate of canvass, and all other election papers.

    The status quo ante order heretofore issued is made permanent.

    This decision is immediately executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., concurs in the result.

    Buena and Quisumbing, JJ., are on leave.

    Ynares-Santiago, J., abroad on official time.

    Endnotes:



    1. Filed on 27 April 2001, Rollo, pp. 3-18, under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

    2. Issued on 2 May 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-62.

    3. Filed on 04 May 2001, Rollo, pp. 103-112.

    4. The municipal election officer, Baybay, Leyte, had no fax machine (Certification, Rollo, p. 146). With the enactment of the E-Commerce Law, transmission by fax may be legal. R. A. No. 8792.

    5. Manifestation/Compliance, Annex "A", par. 5, Rollo, pp. 149-150, at p. 149.

    6. Affidavit, Rollo, pp. 126, 151.

    7. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 19-21.

    8. Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 22-24.

    9. Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 25-26.

    10. Agenda, Law Department, Rollo, pp. 114-117.

    11. Petition, Annex "I", Rollo, pp. 56-60, at pp. 56-59.

    12. Petition, Annexes "H" and "I", Rollo, pp. 51-60.

    13. Filed on 27 April 2001. Rollo, pp. 3-18. On 2 May 2001, we required respondents to file comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss, not later than 4 May 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-62. We now give due course to the petition.

    14. Montinola v. Commission on Elections, 98 Phil. 220 [1956].

    15. Ibid., at p. 223.

    16. Comelec Resolution No. 3253-A, Sec. 12, promulgation 20 November 2000.

    17. Cf. Palanca v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 593 [1994].

    18. Oft-quoted definition of Webster is that procedural due process requires a law that hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial (Flores v. Buencamino, 74 SCRA 332 [1976]; Lorenzana v. Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485 [1977]; Loquias v. Rodriguez, 65 SCRA 659 [1975]; Romero v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 183 [1987]).

    19. Order, dated 11 April 2001, Rollo, pp. 38-40.

    20. Petition, Annex "F", Rollo, p. 41.

    21. Petition, Annex "G", Rollo, pp. 42-50.

    22. Villarosa v. Commission on Elections, 319 SCRA 470 [1999].

    23. Sandoval v. Commission on Elections, 323 SCRA 403, 423 [2000]; Cf. Go v. National Police Commission, 338 Phil. 162, 171 [1997].

    G.R. No. 147741   May 10, 2001 - MA. CATALINA L. GO v. COMELEC, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED