MAUYAG B. PAPANDAYAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FAHIDA P. BALT, RESPONDENTS.

The petition at bar has been rendered moot for the most part by
our Decision of April 16, 2002 in G. R. No. 147909, also titled Mauyag B. Papandayan, Jr. v. Commission on
Elections and Fahida P. Balt (the disqualification case), which reversed
the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) declaring petitioner
disqualified to run for the position of Mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur. The void proclamation of petitioner as duly
elected mayor, however, necessitated this Resolution.

Petitioner Mauyag B. Papandayan, Jr. and respondent Fahida P.
Balt were among the contenders for the post of Municipal Mayor of Tubaran,
Lanao del Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections. Respondent Balt sought the disqualification of petitioner before the
COMELEC on the ground that he was not a resident of Tubaran.

By Resolution of May 8, 2001, the COMELEC declared petitioner
disqualified and accordingly ordered that his name be stricken off the list of
candidates for mayor and that all votes cast in his favor should not be counted
but considered as stray. Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration of the said May 8, 2001 Resolution was, by
Resolution of May 12, 2001, denied.

Petitioner, however, received the highest number of votes for
mayor of Tubaran in the elections held on May 14, 2001. He thus filed with this Court on May 17,
2001 the disqualification case, a petition for Certiorari with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary
injunction, praying for the annulment of the COMELEC Resolutions of May 8 and
12, 2001 disqualifying him as a candidate.

Petitioner subsequently filed on May 19, 2001 with the COMELEC a
petition, docketed as SPC No. 01-039, praying that the Board of Election
Inspectors (BEI) of Tubaran be ordered to count and tally the votes cast in his
favor pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 dated May 7, 2001 mandating that
if the disqualification had not become final and executory on the day of the
elections, the BEI shall tally and count the votes of the disqualified
candidate.

Respondent Balt in turn filed a pre-proclamation case before the
COMELEC against petitioner, docketed as SPC No. 01-259 (the pre-proclamation
case), for exclusion of election returns.

In the interim or on May 22, 2001, this Court issued in the
disqualification case a TRO enjoining the COMELEC to desist from implementing
its Resolutions of May 8 and 12, 2001 disqualifying petitioner as a candidate.

By Order of May 29, 2001, the COMELEC granted the petition in SP
No. 01-039 of petitioner to count and tally the ballots cast in his favor with
the qualification that in the event he wins, his proclamation be suspended
pending the resolution by this Court of the disqualification case. The COMELEC disposed thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby
granted. The Board of Canvassers of
Tuburan, Lanao del Sur is ordered to count and tally the ballots cast in favor
of the Petitioner. However, pending the
resolution of the case for certiorari filed by the Petitioner with the Supreme
Court, the same board is directed to immediately suspend the proclamation of
the Petitioner, if winning, as mayor of Tuburan, Lanao del Sur.^[1]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-said
COMELEC May 29, 2001 Order in SP No. 01-039 insofar as it ordered the
suspension of his proclamation, he arguing that the same constituted “an
unlawful interference with process or proceedings of the High Court in [the
disqualification case].” Pending the
resolution by the COMELEC of petitioner’s said motion for reconsideration or on
June 3, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tuburan proceeded with
petitioner’s proclamation. Respondent
Balt thus filed a motion dated June 19, 2001 for the annulment of the
proclamation, which the COMELEC granted by Order of June 25, 2001, it holding
that:

x x x. Clearly, the act of proclamation is in violation of the May
29, 2001 Order of this Commission (First Division). Moreover, the fact that the pre-proclamation case is also pending
with the Commission, the Board should have deferred its proceedings pursuant to
the provision of the Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code as regards
contested election returns, the pertinent portion which is quoted as follows:

“x x x

The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner
unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the
objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party and any proclamation
made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns
will not adversely affect the results of the election.”

Wherefore, premises considered, this Commission (First Division)
hereby sets aside the proclamation of Petitioner Mauyag B. Papandayan Jr.,
last June 3, 2001 without prejudice to the filing of appropriate charges
against the members of the Board who made the illegal proclamation.^[2]
(Underscoring supplied).

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC
Order of June 25, 2001.

Meanwhile or on June 29, 2001, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution
No. 4493 (Omnibus Resolution on Pending Cases) considering as terminated certain
classes of pre-proclamation cases under which the pre-proclamation case filed
by respondent Balt was classified.

By Resolution of January 30, 2002, the COMELEC, in SP No. 01-039,
denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of its Order of January 25, 2001
annulling his proclamation. Citing,
among other grounds, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646^[3] which
reads:

Sec. 6. Effect of disqualification case. – Any
candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is
voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court
of Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry,
or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during
the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong,

the COMELEC held that “the evidence of
guilt of the petitioner is strong in view of the resolution dated May 8, 2001
of the Second Division (this Commission) disqualifying the petitioner to run as
mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections, as affirmed by the Commission en banc in
its resolution dated May 12, 2001.”^[4] And citing Section 245 of the Omnibus
Election Code, the COMELEC reiterated its directive enjoining the Municipal
Board of Canvassers from proclaiming any candidate as winner in view of the
pendency of the pre-proclamation case filed before it (the COMELEC) by
respondent Balt.

Hence, the present petition for Certiorari filed on February 8,
2002 before this Court against the COMELEC and Baht, petitioner raising the
issue of “whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction and authority to suspend [his]
proclamation . . . on the ground that
the evidence of his guilt of lack of residence is . . . strong,” he contending
that the COMELEC May 29, 2001 Order suspending his proclamation, the June 25,
2001 Order annulling his proclamation, and the June 30, 20001 En Banc
Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration were issued with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

In compliance with this Court’s Resolution of February 12, 2002,
both respondents COMELEC and Baht filed their respective comments on the
petition.

As earlier stated, this Court rendered in the disqualification
case its Decision of April 16, 2002 reversing the COMELEC Resolutions declaring
petitioner disqualified to run for mayor. Thus this Court disposed:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed resolution of
the COMELEC (Second Division), dated May 8, 2001, disqualifying petitioner
Mauyag B. Papandayan, Jr. as a candidate for municipal mayor in Tubaran, Lanao
del Sur, and the resolution, dated May 12, 2001, of the COMELEC en banc, denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is made
PERMANENT.

Respondent Balt’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s
decision in the disqualification case was later to be denied by Resolution of
June 25, 2002.

On April 30, 2002, petitioner filed a “Manifestation that the
Honorable Court Already Decided the [Disqualification Case]”, he stating that
“[the] decision of the Honorable Court [in the disqualification case] has in
effect rendered ineffective and functus
oficio the orders of the COMELEC
dated May 29, 2001 [suspending his proclamation], June 25, 2001 [annulling his
proclamation], and January 30, 2002 [denying the motions for reconsideration]
since the disqualification of the petitioner by the COMELEC has already been
set aside.”

The Court agrees in part.

The grounds for the issuance of the herein assailed COMELEC
Orders of June 25, 2001 and January 30, 2002 rest mainly upon the pendency
before this Court of the disqualification case and partly on the pending
pre-proclamation case filed by respondent Balt before the COMELEC. The COMELEC Order dated May 29, 2001
suspending the proclamation of petitioner in the event he wins the election is
premised on “the pendency of the [disqualification case] in the Supreme
Court.” The Order dated June 25, 2001
annulling the proclamation, in turn, is premised on its alleged “violation of
the May 29, 2001 Order” and the pendency of the pre-proclamation case.

As mentioned above, the COMELEC January 30, 2002 Resolution,
citing Section 6 of R. A. No. 6646, ruled that the suspension of petitioner’s
proclamation was warranted since “the evidence of guilt of the petitioner is
strong in view of [its] resolution dated May 8, 2001” disqualifying him and or
ordering the striking off of his name as mayoral candidate.

The disqualification case having been decided by this Court in
petitioner’s favor, the annulment of the herein challenged order suspending
petitioner’s proclamation follows as a necessary legal consequence. Such effect is deemed read into the
decision5 in the disqualification case notwithstanding the
fact that petitioner did not specifically pray for such above-said relief.

That leaves as the only matter for consideration petitioner’s
proclamation. The Court upholds, in
light of Section 20 (i) of Republic Act No. 7166,6 the
COMELEC’s assailed June 25, 2001 Order setting aside the proclamation of
petitioner by the Tubaran Board of Canvassers. For, at the time of the proclamation, the COMELEC had yet to rule on the
objections interposed by the losing party. There was no showing that the contested returns would not have adversely
affected the results of the election. In view, however, of above-mentioned COMELEC Resolution No. 4493 dated
June 29, 2001 considering terminated certain pre-proclamation cases under which
that filed by respondent Balt falls, there no longer exists any impediment to
petitioner’s proclamation.

WHEREFORE, the COMELEC is hereby ordered to direct the
Tubaran Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner, Mauyag B.
Papandayan, Jr., as duly elected Mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona,
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 46.

^[2] Id., at 48.

^[3]
AN ACT INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL REFORMS IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

^[4]
Id., at 57.

5 vide Cristobal vs.
Melchor, 101 SCRA 857 (1980).

6 An Act Providing for
Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms,
Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for other purposes. Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code
cited by the COMELEC has been expressly repealed by Section 39, R.A. No.
7166. The portions of Section 245 of
the Omnibus Election Code pertinent to
this case, however, are reproduced almost verbatim
in Section 20 (i), R.A. No. 7166 as follows:

(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate
as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the
objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made
in violation hereof shall be void ab
initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results
of the election.