REYNALDO O. MALONZO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY (CALOOCAN CHAPTER) AND ALEX L. DAVID, CONRADO G. CRUZ, TRINIDAD REPUNO, G…

Malonzo versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Reynaldo O. Malonzo, the incumbent Mayor of Caloocan City, against the Commission on Elections, the Liga ng mga Barangay of Caloocan Chapter, and several private respondents who sat as members of the city's Preparatory Recall Assembly. The Mayor asks the Supreme Court to strike down the Commission's resolution giving due course to the recall resolution passed against him and setting the recall election. The case matters because it is the Court's early and authoritative reading of the recall provisions of the Local Government Code: who may initiate a recall, how the Preparatory Recall Assembly must be convened, and how much deference courts owe to the factual findings of the Commission on Elections in recall proceedings.

Procedural History

The recall process began, not in court, but before the Commission on Elections. The Preparatory Recall Assembly of Caloocan City passed its resolution expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo and calling for the initiation of recall proceedings. That resolution, with supporting documents, was filed with the Commission. Mayor Malonzo then filed a petition with the Commission, alleging that the recall was illegally initiated because the process was deficient in form and substance. The Commission, sitting en banc, dismissed his petition, approved and gave due course to the recall resolution, and set the recall election for December 14, 1996.

Mayor Malonzo then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, charging the Commission with grave abuse of discretion. Because of the importance of the issues and the proximity of the scheduled election, the Court ordered the Commission to cease and desist from holding the recall election and directed the respondents to file their comments. The private respondents filed their comment, and the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation in lieu of comment. The Court then resolved the petition on the merits.

Facts

Reynaldo O. Malonzo was duly elected Mayor of Caloocan City in the elections held on May 8, 1995, defeating former Mayor Macario Asistio, Junior. Barely one year into his term, on July 7, 1996, a total of 1,057 Punong Barangays, Sangguniang Barangay members, and Sangguniang Kabataan chairmen met as the Preparatory Recall Assembly of the City of Caloocan. They deliberated and voted to approve Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution Number 01-96, expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo and calling for the initiation of recall proceedings against him.

The resolution was filed with the Commission on Elections, which directed its Election Records and Statistics Department to examine the records, including the question of whether notices had reached the members of the Assembly. The Department reported that of the barangay officials of Caloocan, a number had resigned, died, or been replaced, and that notices had been sent by personal service, registered mail, and courier. It initially listed several persons as not notified, but the private respondents explained each case: some had been removed, some had resigned and been replaced, one had died and been replaced, one could no longer be located at his official address, and one had refused to acknowledge receipt. The Department's final report added two more names, which the respondents likewise explained. Three persons claiming to be barangay captains also appeared and said they were not notified, but the records showed they had in fact been served.

The Commission found that the requirements of notice had been fully complied with, applying the rule on completeness of service. It also upheld the proceedings of the Assembly, finding that a session was held in a public place, attended by a majority of all the members, with deliberations and a vote, and that the resolution was adopted by a majority. It rejected the Mayor's claims of irregularities, violence, graft, and corruption as uncorroborated. The Mayor then brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that the required notices to the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly were validly served.
• Whether or not the recall proceedings were invalid because they were convened by the Liga ng mga Barangay rather than by the Preparatory Recall Assembly.
• Whether or not the proceedings of the Preparatory Recall Assembly were tainted with irregularities, violence, graft, and corruption.

Applicable Provisions

Section 69 of Republic Act Number 7160, the Local Government Code, defines who exercises the power of recall:

Section 69. By whom Exercised. The power of recall for loss of confidence shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs.

This fixes the recall as an act of the electorate, even though the process may be initiated by the Assembly.

Section 70 of the same Code governs the initiation of the recall process:

Section 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. (a) Recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall assembly or by the registered voters of the local government unit to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs.

(b) There shall be a preparatory recall assembly in every province, city, district, and municipality which shall be composed of the following: xxx (2) City level. All punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members in the city; xxx

(c) A majority of all the preparatory recall assembly members may convene in session in a public place and initiate a recall proceeding against any elective official in the local government unit concerned. Recall of provincial, city, or municipal officials shall be validly initiated through a resolution adopted by a majority of all the members of the preparatory recall assembly concerned during its session called for the purpose.

This is the provision the Court construes: it identifies the members of the Assembly and the manner of initiating a recall, and it is the basis for testing the validity of the Caloocan proceedings.

Section 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which the Commission applied to the question of notices, provides:

Section 8. Completeness of Service. Personal service is complete upon delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of five (5) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides; Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect at the expiration of such time.

This supplies the standard for deciding when service of notice on an Assembly member is complete.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the question of the propriety of the notices is factual in nature, and its determination is a function of the Commission on Elections. The Commission had in fact investigated the matter through its Election Records and Statistics Department, so the Solicitor General's suggestion that the issue be remanded was unnecessary. Absent patent error or serious inconsistency, the Court will not disturb the Commission's factual findings, which are conclusive when supported by evidence. To order a repeat of the process, the Court said, would sanction a recycling of administrative functions, with added cost and waste of effort.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Mayor's insistence that the recall was infirm because it was convened by the Liga ng mga Barangay was misplaced. The Liga is an entity distinct from the Preparatory Recall Assembly. It merely happens that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the Assembly. The Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members convened and voted as members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly, not as members of the Liga. The Court stressed that the law on recall does not prescribe an elaborate proceeding; what is fundamental is a session called for the purpose, attended by a majority of all the members, in a public place, with a resolution adopted by a majority of all the members.

On the third issue, the Court held that the charges of graft, corruption, violence, and irregularities were largely uncorroborated and could not override the substantiated findings of the Commission. A fact may be deemed established if supported by substantial evidence, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. To overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, more than a mere scintilla of proof is needed.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Section 70 of the Local Government Code, a recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall assembly or by the registered voters of the local government unit. Second, at the city level, the Assembly is composed of all punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members, and a recall is validly initiated through a resolution adopted by a majority of all its members during a session called for the purpose, held in a public place. Third, the law does not require an elaborate procedure; substantial compliance with these essentials suffices. Fourth, the Liga ng mga Barangay is distinct from the Preparatory Recall Assembly, and the fact that the same persons sit in both does not invalidate the recall. Fifth, the factual findings of the Commission on Elections in recall proceedings, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive on the courts absent patent error.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirmed the Commission's resolution giving due course to the recall resolution, and ordered the Commission to set the recall election in Caloocan City not later than thirty days after receipt of notice of the resolution, which is immediately executory.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the Liga ng mga Barangay is not the Preparatory Recall Assembly, and the law on recall demands only a session in a public place, a majority of all members, and a majority vote, not an elaborate procedure. Examiners use this case to test the composition and convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly under Section 70, and the conclusiveness of the Commission on Elections' factual findings on notice and substantial evidence.