ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164076.� November 22, 2005]
VARELA vs . COMELEC
EN BANC
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 22 2005.
R E S O L U T I O N
G.R. No. 164076 ( Amelia Varela, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al .)
G.R. No. 164863 ( Benedicto Alvarez, et al. vs. The Commission on Elections, et al. )
At issue is the plebiscite conducted for the conversion of the Municipality of Sta. Rosa in the Province of Laguna into a component city, known as City of Santa Rosa.
Factual Antecedents
On March 10, 2004, Republic Act No. 9264, known as the "Charter of the City of Santa Rosa" was approved by the Twelfth Congress of the Philippines. On June 15, 2004, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 7249 declaring June 19, 2004 to July 15, 2004 as the plebiscite period. It provided for a calendar of activities and prohibited acts in connection with the plebiscite scheduled on July 10, 2004.
On the same date, June 15, 2004, the COMELEC also promulgated Resolution No. 7250 providing for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of said plebiscite to be held in the whole Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
The Cases filed in this Court
G.R. No. 164030
On July 5, 2004, the Provincial Government of Laguna filed a Petition for Prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the COMELEC, the Municipality of Sta. Rosa and its Municipal Treasurer enjoining the conduct of the plebiscite, docketed as G.R. No. 164030. The Province of Lag una alleged that: (1) the procedure mandated by law in connection with its petition for conversion into a city was not complied with by respondent Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Laguna; (2) the holding of the plebiscite only in respondent Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Laguna is unconstitutional and illegal as the whole province will be affected by the proposed cityhood of respondent Sta. Rosa, Laguna; and (3) the holding of the plebiscite on July 10, 2004 is contrary to law for failure to comply with the statutory time limit. 1
Petitioner Province of Laguna argued, inter alia, that while the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Laguna expressed no objection to the desire of the Sangguniang Bay an of Sta. Rosa to be converted into a city, Resolution No. 125, s. 2003 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was not approved by Governor Teresita S. Lazaro as it did not bear her signature; the holding of the plebiscite only in the Municipality of Sta. Rosa is unconstitutional as it is contrary to Section 10, Article X of the Constitution; Sections 10 and 449 of the Local Government Code mandate that the required plebiscite must be conducted in the local government unit or units directly affected; that Section 52 of Republic Act No. 9264 and Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7250 are contrary to the Constitution and applicable laws, among others.
The Court dismissed the petition in a Minute Resolution dated July 6, 2004, thus:
The Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for failure thereof to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Commission on Elections in rendering the challenged resolution which; on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence. 2
The Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioners was denied with finality in a Resolution 3 dated July 13, 2004.
G.R. No. 164076
Thereafter or on July 8, 2004, petitioners Amelia Varela, Sabina A. Ariola, Melita Carvajal, and Sister Teresita Lijauco, as taxpayers and residents of the Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, filed a petition asserting that the plebiscite scheduled for July 10, 2004 is illegal as such plebiscite should include not only the voters in the local unit to be segregated but all the voters comprising the mother unit. As such, the COMELEC went beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolutions regarding the conduct of the plebiscite. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 164076.
The Court required the respondents to comment. In the meantime, the plebiscite was held on July 10, 2004.
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment, 4 asserted that the COMELEC has plenary power to ensure that the sovereign will of the body politics is determined in a free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election, and such power takes precedence over Section 52 of Republic Act No. 9264. Moreover, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.
The City Treasurer, meanwhile, pointed out that the petition should be dismissed for being moot and academic as a similar petition (G.R. No. 164030) had been filed and already dismissed by the Court.
The Court gave due course to the petition and the parties were required to file their respective memoranda. 5
G.R. No. 164863
On August 30, 2004, Benedicto Alvarez, Teody Alvarez, Carlo Esteban Diaz, Jr., and Jose Papera, another group of residents and taxpayers of the province of Laguna, filed a petition docketed as G.R. No. 164863 praying for the nullification of the plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC. They alleged that the plebiscite was illegal as it was held way beyond the period provided by Republic Act No. 9264; 6 and that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it issued Resolution Nos. 7249 and 7250.
On September 14, 2004, the Court resolved to dismiss G.R. No. 164863 for failure to sufficiently show any grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC in rendering the challenged resolutions. 7
Two days thereafter, or on September 16, 2004, petitioners in G.R. No. 164863 filed a Manifestation and Motion To Consolidate their Petition with G.R. No. 164076. 8 They alleged that both petitions raise substantially the same issues, the only difference being G.R. No. 164076 was filed before the ratification plebiscite conducted on July 10, 2004. On October 5, 2004, the Court noted without action the said manifestation and motion. 9
On October 20, 2004, the petitioners in G.R. No. 164863 moved for the reconsideration of the dismissal of their petition in the Resolution dated September 14, 2004. They alleged that the issue in the case is of transcendental importance, as it concerns the constitutionality of Section 52 of Republic Act No. 9264. 10
On January 11, 2005, the Court directed then Clerk of Court Luzviminda D. Puno to submit a report on the feasibility of consolidating G.R. No. 164863 with G.R. No. 164076. 11 Considering that both petitions arose from the same factual antecedents, it was recommended that the petitions be consolidated. Thus, in the Resolution 12 dated February 8, 2005, G.R. No. 164863 was consolidated with G.R. No. 164076.
The Incidents Before the Court
For the Court's resolution are the following: (1) the Motion for Reconsideration filed in G.R. No. 164863; and (2) the Petition in G.R. No. 164076.
After a careful study of the petitions, it appears that the issues in G.R. Nos. 164076 and 164863 are basically a reiteration of the issues raised by the Provincial Government of Laguna in G.R. No. 164030. The three (3) petitions filed in this Court actually question the COMELEC Resolutions limiting the plebiscite for the conversion of the Municipality of Sta. Rosa into a component city to qualified voters of Sta. Rosa only, to the exclusion of the other voters/residents of the Province of Laguna. This issue was duly passed upon by the Court when it dismissed G.R. No. 164030 on July 6, 2004, after finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in issuing the assailed resolutions.
It must be stressed that while G.R. No. 164030 was dismissed via Minute Resolution, such dismissal was an adjudication on the merits of the controversy or the subject matter of the petition. Moreover, the fact that the three (3) petitions were filed by different parties-petitioners does not operate to bar the application of res judicata . Undeniably, these petitions have the common interest of seeking the nullification of the plebiscite conducted exclusively in Sta. Rosa. G.R. Nos. 164076 and 164863 can no longer resurrect a case already decided by this Court; the July 6, 2004 Resolution became final and executory on August 27, 2004, and has been duly recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. As the Supreme Court has observed, " res judicata thus encourages reliance on judicial decisions, bars vexatious litigations, and frees the courts to resolve other disputes." 13
IN VIEW THEREOF, the Court Resolved the following:
1) In G.R. No. 164863, the Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 20, 2004 is DENIED for lack of merit;
2) In G.R. No. 164076, the petition is DISMISSED with finality on the ground of res judicata.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 164030), p. 11.
2 Id. at 52.
3 Id. at 64.
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 164076), p. 145.
5 Resolution dated January 25, 2005, rollo (G.R. No. 164076), p. 137.
6 Section 52 of Republic Act No. 9264, approved on March 10, 2004 provides that the ratification plebiscite should be conducted within thirty (30) days from the approval of the Act.
7 Rollo (G.R. No. 164863), at an unnumbered page between pp. 113 and 114.
8 Id. at 114.
9 Id. at 119.
10 Id. at 124.
11 Id. at 137.
12 Id. at 141.
13 Villanueva v. Cowl of Appeals , G.R. No. 110921, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 180.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
