ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G. R. No. 160800.� October 12, 2004]
LEE vs. TANCANGCO
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 12 2004 .
G. R. No. 160800 (SALLY A. LEE vs. HON. COMMISSIONER LUZVIMINDA G. TANCANGCO.)
Before us is a petition for indirect contempt filed on December 4, 2003 by Sally A. Lee (LEE) against Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tancangco.1
The antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner LEE was a candidate for mayor in Sorsogon City, Sorsogon, in the 2001 elections. During the canvassing, her opponent, Leovic Dioneda, objected to the inclusion of the election return for Precinct 28A2, Brgy. Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City, on the grounds that it was incomplete on a material data and that it was prepared by persons other than the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI). The City Board of Canvassers (BOC), however, included the contested return and proclaimed petitioner LEE as duly-elected Mayor. Dioneda appealed to the COMELEC.
The COMELEC Second Division reversed the BOC ruling and excluded the subject return. The exclusion was affirmed by the COMELEC en banc. As a consequence, petitioner LEE's proclamation was nullified and a new City BOC was ordered to be convened to prepare another Statement of Votes excluding the subject return, and to proclaim the winning candidate.
Petitioner LEE assailed the ruling in a special civil action for certiorari filed with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 157004,2 imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in excluding the election return for Precinct 28A2. She argued that even if the exclusion was valid, a recount should have been ordered first to avoid disenfranchisement of the voters in the precinct involved.
We rendered our decision on July 4, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads
WHEREFORE, the COMELEC is x x x DIRECTED to determine x x x whether the integrity of the ballot box, the ballot-contents of which were tallied and reflected in the questioned return, is intact and, if in the affirmative and the integrity of the ballots is likewise intact, to order the Sorsogon City Board of Election Inspectors to recount the votes cast in Precinct No. 28A2 in Barangay Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City and prepare a new return to serve as basis of canvass by said board; otherwise the ballot box should no longer be opened or the ballots should no longer be recounted as the case may be, in which case an order for the safekeeping of the ballot box should be issued. The Status Quo Ante Order issued on February 18, 2003 is hereby DISSOLVED.
SO ORDERED. 3
To implement the above Decision, the COMELEC issued an Order dated July 22, 2003 creating a new City BOC composed of COMELEC officials to determine the integrity of the subject ballot box. Petitioner, however, moved for reconsideration of our July 4, 2003 decision. On November 18, 2003, we denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner LEE thereupon filed a motion in the COMELEC en banc 4 to amend its Order dated July 22, 2003 on the ground that it should be the BEI of the subject precinct, not the BOC, composed of COMELEC officials, that should conduct the determination-of-integrity proceedings. She further argued that no new proclamation can be made if no recount is conducted upon a finding of violation of integrity of the ballot box and/or ballots. On November 27, 2003, petitioner LEE received copy of an Order of the COMELEC which recalled its earlier designation of the new City BOC, composed of COMELEC officials. The Order also designated Commissioner Tancangco to conduct the determination-of-integrity proceedings. At the same time, COMELEC approved and adopted her findings that the integrity of the ballot box was no longer intact and that its contents appeared to have been the subject of manipulation and tampering.
Petitioner LEE objected again to the November 27, 2003 Order on the ground that her motion dated November 24, 2003 had not yet been acted upon. She asked that the motion and its incidents, as well as her "Motion to Inhibit Hon. Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tancangco," be set for hearing. No hearing was ordered by the COMELEC.
On December 4, 2003, petitioner LEE filed the present contempt proceedings alleging that respondent Tancangco is guilty of indirect contempt for determining the integrity of the subject ballot box (1) before the finality of the Court's decision in G.R. No. 157004, (2) without notice to the parties and in their absence; and, (3) for opening the ballot box despite the finding that its integrity was no longer intact.
We find no merit in the petition.
Contempts are punished as offenses against the administration of justice and the offense of violating a judicial order is punishable by the court which is charged with its enforcement, regardless of the court which may have made the order. 5 In the case at bar, we tasked the COMELEC en banc to enforce our decision of July 4, 2003. Thus, any alleged irregularity that may have been committed by respondent in the enforcement of our decision should be addressed to the COMELEC, including those which may constitute contemptuous acts.
Petitioner's contention that respondent Commissioner implemented our decision despite its non-finality, lacks merit. We denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in our Resolution dated November 18, 2003, copy of which was received by petitioner on November 21, 2003.6 Respondent, on the other hand, alleged that the COMELEC received notice on November 20, 2003.7 Clearly then, the determination-of-integrity proceedings on November 24, 2003 was conducted after the parties received notice of our resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and after finality of our decision.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is dismissed.
Morales, Azcuna and Chico-Nazario, JJ., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Retired on February 3, 2004.
2 Entitled "Sally A. Lee v. Commission on Elections and Leovic R. Dioneda."
3 Rollo, p. 47.
4 Motion entitled "Urgent Motion Ad Cautelam to Amend/Modify the 22 July 2003 Order to Conform to the Decision of the Supreme Court" and dated November 24, 2003; Id., pp. 91-104.
5 See People v. Godoy, 243 SCRA 64, 100 (1995), citing Menuez v. Grimes Candy Co., 83 NE 82.
6 Petition, p. 12; Rollo, p. 14.
7 Comment, p. 3; Id., p. 142.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
