April 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > April 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 191106 : April 27, 2010] CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ HI V. HON. PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 191106 : April 27, 2010]
CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ HI V. HON. PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated April 27, 2010
"G.R. No. 191106 (Celestino A. Martinez HI v. Hon. Prospero C. Nograles, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives and Marilyn B. Barua-Yap, in her capacity as Secretary General of the House of Representatives of the Philippines).
RESOLUTION
Petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III filed a petition for mandamus with damages against respondents Prospero C. Nograles, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Marilyn Barua-Yap, Secretary General of the same legislative body. Martinez sought to compel respondents to include him in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives (House) and provide him with all the rights, privileges, and entitlements of such member. Martinez invokes the January 11, 2010 decision of the Court in G.R. 189034[1] that declared him the duly elected Representative of the 4th District of Cebu over his rival Benhur L. Salimbangon.
Petitioner Martinez claims that the Court already denied with finality Salimbangon's second motion for reconsideration of the decision; that an entry of judgment was already made in the case, and that he already took his oath of office before Deputy Speaker Eric Singson.[2] Yet, respondent House officials have maliciously prevented Martinez from assuming his office as Member of the House, disobeying the Court's decision in G.R. 189034. Martinez seeks damages and attorney's fees of P1,050,000.00 as a consequence of respondents' allegedly malicious refusal to perform their ministerial duty to execute the Court's decision.
Finally, petitioner prays that respondents be cited for contempt of court for their disobedience and resistance to the judgment of the Court in G.R. 189034 pursuant to Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
On March 9, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution requiring the respondents to file their Comment, and to abide by the final and executory decision in G.R. 189034.
In his Comment, respondent Nograles claims that the House already complied with the decision in G.R. 189034. It had deleted the name of Salimbangon from the House records and its payroll as early as February 3, 2010, thus, leaving the petition moot and academic. Nograles assures the Court that petitioner has already received "the kit containing the necessary documents to be signed for the appointment of (petitioner's) staff members."[3]
Petitioner Martinez replies, however, that although the House has removed Salimbangon's name from the House records, he (Martinez) has not yet been installed as the rightful Representative in Salimbangon's stead. Martinez's name has not been included in the Roll of Members, and he has not been accorded the rights to the Office of Representative of the 4th District of Cebu. Martinez emphatically denies respondent Nograles' claim that he has received the kit containing the necessary documents to be signed for the appointment of his staff members.
The Court partly grants the petition.
This Court has said in Codilla, Sr. v. de Venecia[4] that the House leadership has a purely ministerial duty to recognize a Member that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has declared with finality as the winner in the elections. Thus:
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy in petitioner's case. The issue of his right to the office of the Representative of the 4th District of Cebu having been settled with finality, there remains no other course of action but for petitioner to take his rightful seat and discharge his functions as the duly elected Representative for the benefit of his district and constituency.
We find, however, no sufficient evidence to award damages. True, respondent House officials have a ministerial duty, and they failed to discharge it to the detriment of petitioner and his constituents. But this does not necessarily result in a finding of fault that would warrant the grant of damages. The right to damages is evidentiary, an issue for the lower courts to handle in an appropriate case for damages, should petitioner choose to institute one.
On the matter of contempt, the Court shall defer its resolution in the spirit of comity between two separate, co-equal, but coordinate branches of government. Respondents have said that they are willing to comply with the decision in petitioner Martinez's favor. But if the respondents should still refuse to abide by the Court's decision in G.R. 189034, which has now been firmly cemented by the directive in this case, then this time they would do so under veritable pain of contempt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. Let a writ of mandamus be issued, ordering respondents Speaker of the House of Representatives, Prospero C. Nograles and its Secretary General, Marilyn Barua-Yap, to 1) implement this Court's Decision in G.R. 189034; 2) register the name of the petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives; and 3) grant petitioner all the rights, privileges, and benefits appurtenant to the Office of the Representative of the 4th District of Cebu effective February 2, 2010."
"G.R. No. 191106 (Celestino A. Martinez HI v. Hon. Prospero C. Nograles, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives and Marilyn B. Barua-Yap, in her capacity as Secretary General of the House of Representatives of the Philippines).
RESOLUTION
Petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III filed a petition for mandamus with damages against respondents Prospero C. Nograles, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Marilyn Barua-Yap, Secretary General of the same legislative body. Martinez sought to compel respondents to include him in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives (House) and provide him with all the rights, privileges, and entitlements of such member. Martinez invokes the January 11, 2010 decision of the Court in G.R. 189034[1] that declared him the duly elected Representative of the 4th District of Cebu over his rival Benhur L. Salimbangon.
Petitioner Martinez claims that the Court already denied with finality Salimbangon's second motion for reconsideration of the decision; that an entry of judgment was already made in the case, and that he already took his oath of office before Deputy Speaker Eric Singson.[2] Yet, respondent House officials have maliciously prevented Martinez from assuming his office as Member of the House, disobeying the Court's decision in G.R. 189034. Martinez seeks damages and attorney's fees of P1,050,000.00 as a consequence of respondents' allegedly malicious refusal to perform their ministerial duty to execute the Court's decision.
Finally, petitioner prays that respondents be cited for contempt of court for their disobedience and resistance to the judgment of the Court in G.R. 189034 pursuant to Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
On March 9, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution requiring the respondents to file their Comment, and to abide by the final and executory decision in G.R. 189034.
In his Comment, respondent Nograles claims that the House already complied with the decision in G.R. 189034. It had deleted the name of Salimbangon from the House records and its payroll as early as February 3, 2010, thus, leaving the petition moot and academic. Nograles assures the Court that petitioner has already received "the kit containing the necessary documents to be signed for the appointment of (petitioner's) staff members."[3]
Petitioner Martinez replies, however, that although the House has removed Salimbangon's name from the House records, he (Martinez) has not yet been installed as the rightful Representative in Salimbangon's stead. Martinez's name has not been included in the Roll of Members, and he has not been accorded the rights to the Office of Representative of the 4th District of Cebu. Martinez emphatically denies respondent Nograles' claim that he has received the kit containing the necessary documents to be signed for the appointment of his staff members.
The Court partly grants the petition.
This Court has said in Codilla, Sr. v. de Venecia[4] that the House leadership has a purely ministerial duty to recognize a Member that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has declared with finality as the winner in the elections. Thus:
In the case at bar, the administration of oath and the registration of the petitioner in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives representing the 4th legislative district of Leyte is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the public respondents. The facts are settled and beyond dispute: petitioner garnered 71,350 votes as against respondent Locsin who only got 53, 447 votes in the May 14, 2001 elections. The COMELEC Second Division initially ordered the proclamation of respondent Locsin; on Motion for Reconsideration the COMELEC en banc set aside the order of its Second Division and ordered the proclamation of the petitioner. The Decision of the COMELEC en banc has not been challenged before this Court by respondent Locsin and said Decision has become Final and executory.
In sum, the issue of who is the rightful Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte has been finally settled by the COMELEC en banc, the constitutional body with jurisdiction on the matter. The rule of law demands that its Decision be obeyed by all officials of the land. There is no alternative to the rule of law except the reign of chaos and confusion.[5] (Emphasis supplied)
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy in petitioner's case. The issue of his right to the office of the Representative of the 4th District of Cebu having been settled with finality, there remains no other course of action but for petitioner to take his rightful seat and discharge his functions as the duly elected Representative for the benefit of his district and constituency.
We find, however, no sufficient evidence to award damages. True, respondent House officials have a ministerial duty, and they failed to discharge it to the detriment of petitioner and his constituents. But this does not necessarily result in a finding of fault that would warrant the grant of damages. The right to damages is evidentiary, an issue for the lower courts to handle in an appropriate case for damages, should petitioner choose to institute one.
On the matter of contempt, the Court shall defer its resolution in the spirit of comity between two separate, co-equal, but coordinate branches of government. Respondents have said that they are willing to comply with the decision in petitioner Martinez's favor. But if the respondents should still refuse to abide by the Court's decision in G.R. 189034, which has now been firmly cemented by the directive in this case, then this time they would do so under veritable pain of contempt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. Let a writ of mandamus be issued, ordering respondents Speaker of the House of Representatives, Prospero C. Nograles and its Secretary General, Marilyn Barua-Yap, to 1) implement this Court's Decision in G.R. 189034; 2) register the name of the petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives; and 3) grant petitioner all the rights, privileges, and benefits appurtenant to the Office of the Representative of the 4th District of Cebu effective February 2, 2010."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Entitled Celestino A. Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Benhur L. Salimbangon.
[2] Rollo, p. 48.
[3] Id. at 100.
[4] 442 Phil. 139(2002).
[5] Id. at 189-190.
