ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 6 2004 .

G.R. No. 162892 (Paul Clementino V. Osorio vs. Commission on Elections and Angelino V. Laureta .)

The present special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus impugns the March 30, 2004 resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, in SPA-02-162 (BRGY), which in turn denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of an earlier resolution rendered by the COMELEC's First Division on August 23, 2002. The latter granted private respondent's petition for disqualification of petitioner in the July 15, 2002 barangay elections.

The undisputed facts follow.

Petitioner and private respondents were both candidates for the position of Barangay Chairman in the 2002 barangay elections.

Private respondent filed a disqualification case against petitioner on the ground that the latter was found guilty of dishonesty by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) while holding public office. Said CSC decision was final and executory.

Petitioner won the barangay election by 21 votes. However, on August 23, 2002, the COMELEC First Division released its resolution declaring petitioner disqualified to run for any public elective position:

After considering all the documentary evidences (sic) on hand, WE find the petition to be meritorious. The Respondent was found guilty of dishonesty in a decision of the Civil Service Commission under its CSC Resolution No. 981985 dated 22 July 1998. Said decision was later affirmed under CSC Resolution 990564 dated 15 March 1999. The failure of the Respondent to elevate this case to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals makes the decision of the Civil Service Commission final and executory. Since the penalty imposed upon herein Respondent include[d] dismissal from service as a result of that administrative Case, WE find the Respondent to have violated COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 Section 3(b) in relation to Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code and thus, disqualified to be a candidate in the 15 July [2002] Barangay Elections.1

On September 9, 2002, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration.

Thus, the present petition.

Petitioner insists that the word "office" in Section 40(b) of the 1991 Local Government Code refers exclusively to an elective office.

We disagree.

Petitioner's cause for disqualification is provided in Section 3(b) of COMELEC resolution 4801 promulgated on May 23, 2002:

Section 3. Disqualifications. - The following are disqualified from running for any elective barangay and sangguniang kabataan positions:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.

xxx xxx xxx

in relation to Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code:

(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.

xxx xxx xxx

The above-stated provisions state "removed from office" without any qualification. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish, in accordance with the maxim ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court