Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25379. September 25, 1968.]

JOSE L. LACHICA and the LIBERAL PARTY, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN E. YAP, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, SERGIO ABESAMES, Et Al., Respondents.

Ambrosio Padilla Law Offices, for Petitioners.

Peralta Law Offices for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ELECTIONS; CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS; JUDICIAL RECOUNT; EFFECT OF PROCLAMATION AND ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE. — The Supreme Court will not rule on the merits of a petition for certiorari to nullify an order of the Court of First Instance denying a petition for recount of ballots cast for election to the House of Representatives, where the respondent candidate had been proclaimed elected to that body and had assumed office as member thereof, but will dismiss the petition and leave the matter to the sole and exclusive appraisal and judgment of the House Electoral Tribunal.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, petitioners being Jose L. Lachica, the candidate for the office of Congressman of the other petitioner, Liberal Party, for the Second District of the Province of Sorsogon, filed against respondent Judge, the Honorable Juan E. Yap, of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, the chairman and members of the provincial board of canvassers as well as Vicente L. Peralta, the Nacionalista Party candidate, now deceased. It was filed on December 2, 1965, to nullify an order of November 29, 1965 of respondent Judge denying the petition for recount, of the ballots cast in Precinct No. 7 of the Municipality of Bacon, Precinct No. 22 of the Municipality of Casiguran and Precincts Nos. 48 and 58 of the Municipality of Sorsogon and thereafter to order respondent Judge to proceed with such judicial recount. On the assumption that respondent Vicente L. Peralta had already been proclaimed, it was likewise prayed in the petition that judgment be rendered declaring the same null and void, so that the winner could be ascertained after such judicial recount and thereafter declared as such.

This Court, in a resolution of December 3, 1965, gave due course to the petition, requiring respondents to answer within 10 days. No injunction was issued.

In the answer of respondent Vicente L. Peralta, he asserted that there was no valid ground for a judicial recount. Hence the order of respondent Judge denying such a plea was in accordance with law and judicial precedents. Moreover, he alleged in his special defenses that his proclamation "has been made in the regular performance of duty by the respondent Provincial Board of Canvassers [and] is now a consummated fact. It is not tainted with illegality or irregularity of any kind." 1 The prayer was for the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

Thereafter, in the manifestation filed on January 14, 1966 by respondent Vicente L. Peralta, he stated that this petition was set forth for oral argument for December 20, 1965, at which date counsel for the opposing parties appealed and argued for the respective sides, petition being submitted for decision. It was likewise alleged that he, having been proclaimed previously, had "already taken his oath of office last December 30, 1965, and having effectively assumed and commenced the discharge of his duties as the duly elected Congressman of the Second District of Sorsogon, the above-entitled petition of petitioner Lachica has now become a moot question." 2

The above manifestation was noted in a resolution of January 19, 1966 of this Court. There was no denial of such fact of proclamation by petitioners. In their counter-manifestation of January 18, 1966, they would have however, this Court, the above proclamation notwithstanding, still rule on the merits of their petition.

According to the Constitution: "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns, and qualifications of their respective Members . . ." 3 In the leading case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, 4 the scope of such authority was set forth thus: "From the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it is evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members, to an independent and impartial tribunal." 5 The grant of power to the then Philippine Senate and House of Representatives under the Jones Law was characterized by this Court as "full, clear and complete." 6 Moreover, as noted by Justice Laurel in the same Angara decision: "The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature." 7

To such a doctrine this Court has remained committed. The power of the Electoral Tribunal remains full, clear and complete. It excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restrict or curtail it or even affect the same. 8

Prior to the proclamation of respondent Peralta, this Court could very well pass on the validity of the action of respondent Judge in an appropriate proceeding. After such proclamation, and much more so after the oath of office was taken by the candidate proclaimed, with his exercise of the prerogatives vested in such position, it would not only curtail the plenary grant of authority to the Electoral Tribunal but likewise could result in an unseemly wrangling between such constitutional agency and this Court if the matter were not left to the sole and exclusive appraisal and judgment of the Electoral Tribunal.

The resolution of this Court in Nacionalista Party v. Commission on Election, 9 affords a precedent for the dismissal of this suit. Thus: ". . ., acting on the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Benigno Aquino, Jr. and petitioners’ opposition thereto; considering that the principal issue in this case involves the eligibility or qualification of said respondent under Section 4, Article VI of the Constitution, which provides in part that ‘no person shall be a Senator unless he be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, at the time of his election, is at least thirty-five years of age, . . .’; that Section 11 of the same Article makes the Senate Electoral Tribunal the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of the Senate; that inasmuch as respondent Benigno Aquino, Jr. has been proclaimed elected to that body and has assumed office as member thereof the determination of his eligibility or qualification properly and exclusively pertains to the Senate Electoral Tribunal, where in fact a case involving this issue has been filed and is now pending; and that the other issues raised in the original petition herein as well as in the other pleadings subsequently filed by the parties, as summarized in petitioners’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, are merely incidental in character and have become moot and academic insofar as the main issue is concerned: the Court resolved to dismiss the instant petition, without pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, this petition is denied. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Dizon and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Answer of respondent Vicente L. Peralta, Special Defenses, par. 17.

2. Manifestation of respondent Peralta of January 14, 1966.

3. Section 11, Article VI, Constitution of the Philippines.

4. 63 Phil. 139 (1936).

5. Ibid, p. 175.

6. Veloso v. Board of Canvassers, 39 Phil. 886 (1919).

7. Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 175.

8. Cf. Suanez v. Chief Accountant, 81 Phil. 818 (1948) and Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).

9. L-28242, February 23, 1968.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.