Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > May 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

093 Phil 310:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6121. May 30, 1953.]

MANUEL S. GAMALINDA, Petitioner, v. JOSE V. YAP, Respondent.

Ramon Diokno and Jose W. Diokno for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Martiniano P. Vivo for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; ELECTION; FAILURE OF ELECTION DUE TO DECLARATION OF INELIGIBILITY. — The effect of the decision declaring a person ineligible to hold the office is only that the election fails entirely.

2. D.; ID.; ID.; VACANCY CREATED TEMPORARY; HOW FILED. — Failure of election creates a temporary vacancy within the meaning of section 21(a) of Republic Act No. 180, which shall be filled by appointment by the President if it is a provincial or city office, and by the provincial governor, with the consent of the provincial board, if it is a municipal office. The vacancy is temporary, because the President is bound to call a special election as soon as practicable.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Although the designation of the respondent as acting municipal mayor was made by the President, since it was expressly upon the recommendation of the provincial board, the appointment was deemed as having been extended by the provincial governor, with the consent of the provincial board.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


The respondent was proclaimed elected in the 1951 general elections as mayor of the municipality of Victoria, Tarlac. In an election protest the Court of First Instance of Tarlac ruled that the respondent was ineligible, and the decision of said court was, upon appeal, affirmed by this Court. On September 3, 1952, the Acting Executive Secretary, by order of the President, designated the respondent as acting mayor of Victoria, pending the election and qualification of the permanent mayor. After the respondent had taken the corresponding oath of office, the petitioner, as duly elected and qualified Vice Mayor of said municipality, demanded that the respondent turn over to the former the office of mayor, and upon the respondent’s refusal to do so, the petitioner instituted the present petition for quo warranto in this Court, seeking a judicial declaration that the petitioner is entitled to occupy the said office.

The petitioner relies on section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code and on section 21, paragraph (b) of the Revised Election Code, Republic Act No. 180. Upon the other hand, the respondent invokes section 21, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the Revised Election Code, in connection with paragraph 1, section 10, Article VII of the Constitution.

Section 2195 of the Revised Administrative Code is clearly not in point, since, as its subject denotes, it has reference to a temporary disability. More particularly, it speaks of the "absence, suspension, or other temporary disability," logically contemplating a case where the mayor continues to be so, though actually unable to discharge the functions of his office due to the causes mentioned which, however, are not of permanent character.

Section 21 of the Revised Election Code reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 21. Vacancy in elective provincial, city or municipal office. —

(a) Whenever a temporary vacancy in any elective local office occurs, the same shall be filled by appointment by the President if it is a provincial or city office, and by the provincial governor, with the consent of the provincial board, if it is a municipal office.

"(b) Whenever in any elective local office a vacancy occurs as a result of the death, resignation, removal or cessation of the incumbent, the President shall appoint thereto a suitable person belonging to the political party of the officer whom he is to replace, upon the recommendation of said party, save in the case of a mayor, which shall be filled by the vice-mayor.

"(c) Whenever the election for local office fails to take place on the date fixed by law, or such election result in a failure to elect, the President shall issue, as soon as practicable, a proclamation calling a special election to fill said office.

"(d) When a local officer-elect dies before assumption of office, or fails to qualify for any reason, the President may in his discretion either call a special election or fill the office by appointment.

"(e) In case a special election has been called and held and shall have resulted in a failure to elect, the President shall fill the office by appointment.

"(f) The person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy in an elective provincial, city or municipal office shall hold the same for the unexpired term of office. (The Revised Election Code, Rep. Act No. 180)."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner also relies on paragraph (b) which, in our opinion, is not applicable, because it deals with a vacancy resulting from the death, resignation, removal, or cessation of the incumbent, thereby implying that the latter is, as correctly contended by the Solicitor General, a de jure officer, the vacancy occurring only by virtue of a cause arising subsequent to his qualification.

The Solicitor General, while admitting that there is a failure of election in the case at bar, contemplated by paragraph (c), nevertheless argues that the respondent’s appointment as acting mayor is warranted under paragraphs (d) and (e). Paragraph (d) is obviously not applicable, for it does not cover a case where there is failure of election. But it is argued that, if the President can under paragraph (e) fill an elective municipal office by appointment after a special election has been called and held, which has resulted in a failure to elect, there is no reason why he cannot make the appointment pending the calling of a special election under paragraph (c). This contention is untenable, as paragraph (e) deals expressly with a situation where a special election has already been called and held, resulting in a failure to elect.

In our opinion, the Solicitor General is correct in stating that paragraph (c) must be applied, because the 1951 elections resulted in a failure to elect a mayor in the municipality of Victoria. Indeed, this Court already held in Topacio v. Paredes (23 Phil. 238), that the effect of a decision declaring a person ineligible to hold an office is only that the election fails entirely.

We therefore incline to hold, by the logical process of elimination, that the failure of election herein has created a temporary vacancy within the meaning of paragraph (a), which shall be filled by appointment by the President if it is a provincial or city office, and by the provincial governor, with the consent of the provincial board, if it is a municipal office. The vacancy has to be temporary for the simple reason that the President is called upon, under paragraph (c), to call a special election as soon as practicable.

It appearing that, although the designation of the respondent was made by the President, the appointment expressly stated that it was upon the recommendation of the provincial board of Tarlac, it can properly be deduced that said designation carried the sanction of the provincial governor and the provincial board. This necessarily leads us to conclude that the disputed appointment may be deemed as having been extended in effect by the provincial governor, with the consent of the provincial board.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed without costs. So ordered.

Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

Tuason, J., concurs in the result.

Separate Opinions


PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Tratase de un recurso de quo warranto. El recurrente reclama tener derecho de ocupar el cargo de alcalde del municipio de Victoria, provincia de Tarlac.

Los hechos no controvertidos son los siguientes: El recurrente fue elegido vice-alcalde de dicho municipio en las elecciones generales del 13 de noviembre de 1951, habiendose cualificado para el cargo el 1. � de enero de 1952; que el electo alcalde del mismo municipio en las mismas elecciones fue declarado inelegible en la causa de quo warranto, Castañeda cotra Yap * por decision del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Tarlac de 29 de noviembre de 1951, y confirmada por este Tribunal en su decision promulgada en 22 de agosto de 1952, G.R. No. L-5379, Castañeda contra Yap.

En 3 de septiembre de 1952, el Secretario Ejecutivo Interino Hon. Marciano Eoque envio al recurrido Jose V. Yap una comunicacion informandole que, por recomendacion de la Junta Provincial de Tarlac, se le designaba, por orden del Presidente, alcalde interino del municipio de Victoria, Tarlac, mientras estuviess pendiente la eleccion y cualificacion de un alcalde. El recurrido asumio el cargo, El recurrente, por carta certificada, requirio al recurrido que desalojara el cargo y que lo entregara a el, y el recurrido se nego a hacerlo.

El articulo 21 del Codigo Electoral Revisado es del tenor siguiente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Vacante en el cargo provincial, de ciudad o municipal electivo. —

(a) Siempre que ocurra una vacante temporal en cualquier cargo local electivo, la migma sera cubierta por nombramiento del Presidente si fuese un cargo provincial o de ciudad, y por el gobernador provincial, con el consentimiento de la junta provincial, si fuese un cargo municipal.

"(b) Cuando en un cargo local electivo ocurra una vacante a consecuencia del fallecimiento, dimision, destitucion o cese del que lo desempeñaba, el Presidente nombrara para el mismo a una persona adecuada que pertenezca al partido politico del funcionario a quien ha de sustituir, a propuesta de dicho paltido, excepto en el caso de una alcalde, que sera cubierta por el vice-alcalde.

"(c) Cuando la eleccion para un cargo local deje de tener lugar en la fecha señalada por la ley, o la eleccion no llegare a elegir al que ha de occuparlo, el Presidente dictara, tan pronto como sea posible, un proclama convocando una eleccion extraordinaria para este fin.

(d) Cuando un funcionario electo local falleciere antes de tomar posesion del cargo, o dejare de habilitarse por cualquier motivo, el Presidente podra, a su discrecion, convocar una eleccion extraordinaria o llenar el cargo mediante nombramiento.

(e) En caso de que se hubiere convocado y celebrado una eleccion extraordinaria y no se hubiese llegado a elegir al que ha de ocupar el cargo, el Presidente llenara el cargo mediante nombramiento.

(f) La persona nombrada o elegida para cubrir una vacante en un cargo provincial, de ciudad o municipal electivo, ejercera el mismo durante el resto del periodo del cargo."cralaw virtua1aw library

El recurrido ha sido nombrado por el Presidente de acuerdo con el parrafo (d) seg�n la misma carta del Secretario Ejecutivo: pero el recurrido "no ha fallecido antes de tomar posesion del cargo, ni dejo de habilitarse por cualquier motivo" ; al contrario, como fue elegido, presto juramento y ocupo el cargo, pero por una decision en una causa de quo warranto, fue declarado inelegible, se le obligo a dejar el cargo y, como consecuencia, dejo vacante el cargo.

No es aplicable al caso presente el parrafo (d). Tampoco es aplicable el parrafo (c), porque la eleccion no ha dejado de tener lugar en la fecha señalada, o que la eleccion no haya llegado a elegir al que ha de ocupar el cargo; al contrario, se efectuo la eleccion general, y se eligio al recurrido como alcalde.

El aplicable, en mi opinion, es el parrafo (b), porque el cargo de alcalde ha quedado vacante "a consequencia del cese del que lo desempeñaba." Como el alcalde electo, que tomo posesion del cargo, ceso en el desempeño del mismo por mandato judicial, el vice-alcalde debe ocupar el cargo de alcalde. El Procurador General alega que este parrafo se refiere a funcionarios de jure que cesaren en el desempeño del cargo. Esta interpretacion es forzada, viola la hermeneutica legal. Si la intencion del legislador fue la que sostiene el Procurador General, entonces hubiera redactado el parrafo de la manera siguente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Cuando en un cargo local electivo ocurra una vacante a consecuencia del fallecimiento, dimision, destitucion o cese del que lo desempeñaba legalmente, . . ." Como no lo redacto con la palabra legalmente, la consecuencia forzosa es que era indiferente para el legislador que el que lo desempeñara fuese un funcionario de facto o uno de jure. El recurrido lo desempeño como un funcionario de facto en la misma extension y efecto legal como lo hubiera desempeñado un funcionario de jure. Cuando la ley no distingue que clase de funcionario cesa, de facto o de jure, los tribunales tampoco deben distinguir.

En el asunto de Rodriguez contra Tan, el senador de facto Tan recibio los emolumentos del cargo y, cuando el senador de jure Rodriguez reclamo el reembolso del sueldo, la mayoria de este Tribunal denego la peticion por considerar al funcionario de facto con mejor derecho al emolumento que al funcionario de jure.

En el caso presente, el alcalde electo Yap ha desempeñado el cargo, no como funcionario de jure, sino como funcionario de facto; pero lo desempeño con derecho al sueldo y, al cesar como funcionario de facto, dejo un vacante; ese vacante debe ser ocupado por el vice-alcalde por disposicion expresa del parrafo (b).

Endnotes:



PABLO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

* 91 Phil. 819.




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






May-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-5078 May 4, 1953 - LUIS FRANCISCO v. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-5195 May 4, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON LIBRE, ET AL.

    093 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. L-3772 May 13, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAUTI LINGCUAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-5217 May 13, 1953 - VICENTE VILORIA v. ISIDORO VILORIA

    093 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-5292 May 13, 1953 - PELAGIA ARANTE v. ARCADIO ROSEL

    093 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-5331 May 13, 1953 - NG YOUNG v. ANA VILLA

    093 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-4258 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4716 May 15, 1953 - FELICISIMA DAPITON v. NICOLAS VELOSO

    093 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-4847 May 15, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS ANSANG

    093 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-5089 May 15, 1953 - JUAN MORTOS v. VICTOR ELLO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-5117 May 15, 1953 - IN RE: FRANCISCO ANG VELOSO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-5529 May 15, 1953 - FORTUNATA RAMENTO, ET AL. v. GUADALUPE COSUANGCO

    093 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. L-5594 May 15, 1953 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOC.

    093 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-6165 May 15, 1953 - ISABELO CENTENO, v. DOLORES GALLARDO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-3708 May 18, 1953 - ROYAL L. RUTTER v. PLACIDO J. ESTEBAN

    093 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-4880 May 18, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-4565 May 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO RAIZ

    093 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-5963 May 20, 1953 - LEYTE-SAMAR SALES CO., ET AL. v. SULPICIO V. CEA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-4376 May 22, 1953 - ASSOCIATION OF CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD, ET AL.

    093 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-4572 May 22, 1953 - DOLORITO M. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    093 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-5029 May 22, 1953 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG CHIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-5829 May 22, 1953 - JOSE NONO v. RUPERTO NEQUIA y OTROS

    093 Phil 120

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    093 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. L-4628 May 25, 1953 - VICENTE M. JOVEN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    093 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-4641 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs.PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    093 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-4888 May 25, 1953 - JOSE MERZA v. PEDRO LOPEZ PORRAS

    093 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-5086 May 25, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA LANAS

    093 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-5236 May 25, 1953 - JOSE TORRES v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES

    093 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-5677 May 25, 1953 - LA CAMPANA COFFEE FACTORY, INC., ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953 - FRANCISCO DE BORJA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-6528 May 25, 1953 - MUNICIPALITY OF BOCAUE, ET AL. v. SEVERINO MANOTOK, ET AL.

    093 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-4478 May 27, 1953 - VICENTE DY SUN v. RICARDO BRILLANTES, ET AL.

    093 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-5127 May 27, 1953 - PEDRO BATUNGBAKAL v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-5145 May 27, 1953 - FRANCISCO BASTIDA, ET AL. v. DY BUNCIO & CO. INC.

    093 Phil 195

  • G.R. Nos. L-5363 & L-5364 May 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAIWAN LUCAS

    093 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-5554 May 27, 1953 - BENITO CHUA KUY v. EVERRETT STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

    093 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-4177 May 29, 1953 - IN RE: YAP CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    093 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. L-4433 May 29, 1953 - SALUD PATENTE v. ROMAN OMEGA

    093 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4629 May 29, 1953 - JUAN D. SALVADOR, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO LOCSIN

    093 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-4645 May 29, 1953 - LORENZO GAUIRAN v. RUFINO SAHAGUN

    093 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-5184 May 29, 1953 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

    093 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-5282 May 29, 1953 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-5296 May 29, 1953 - GREGORIO ENRIQUEZ v. DONATO PEREZ

    093 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-5345 May 29, 1953 - COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FINANCE CORP. v. EUTIQUIANO GARCIA

    093 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5406 May 29, 1953 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. v. TALISAY EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS’ UNION

    093 Phil 251

  • G.R. Nos. L-5426-28 May 29, 1953 - RAMON JOAQUIN v. ANTONIO C. NAVARRO

    093 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-5535 May 29, 1953 - U. S. COMMERCIAL CO. v. FORTUNATO F. HALILI

    093 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953 - JUAN EVANGELISTA v. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO

    093 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953 - LEON VELEZ v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-5640 May 29, 1953 - ESTEBAN G. LAPID v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ETC., ET AL.

    093 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. L-5783 May 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

    093 Phil 288

  • Adm. Case No. 72 May 30, 1953 - PLACIDO MANALO v. PEDRO N. GAN

    093 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4758 May 30, 1953 - CALTEX [PHIL. ] INC. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS

    093 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. L-4887 May 30, 1953 - UY MATIAO & CO., INC. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

    093 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-5301 May 30, 1953 - LOURDES T. PAGUIO v. MARIA ROSADO DE RUIZ

    093 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6121 May 30, 1953 - MANUEL S. GAMALINDA v. JOSE V. YAP

    093 Phil 310