ELPIDIO B. VALINO, PETITIONER, VS. ALVIN P. VERGARA, TOMAS N. JOSON III, RAUL P. MENDOZA, ATTY. HAROLD A. RAMOS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Valino versus Vergara

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court by Elpidio Valino, a candidate for city mayor in the May 2007 elections, against his rival Alvin Vergara, the other winning candidates, and the local election officer, Atty. Harold Ramos. Valino complained that illegal campaign materials had been posted in and around the polling places of Cabanatuan City and that no one removed them or punished the offenders. When the Commission on Elections, through an omnibus resolution on pending cases, left his case out of the list of pre-proclamation cases that would survive the start of the new term, he came to the Court. The case matters because it fixes the remedy of a party whose pre-proclamation case is excluded by an omnibus resolution of the Commission en banc, and because it reminds us that a complaint about illegal campaign materials is an election offense that must be prosecuted under the proper rules, not dressed up as a pre-proclamation contest.

Procedural History

After the elections, Valino filed with the Commission on Elections a petition for violation of the Fair Election Act against the respondents, asking that the proclamation of Vergara and the other elected city officials be cancelled. The case was raffled to the Second Division of the Commission. On June 28, 2007, the Commission en banc issued its omnibus resolution on pending cases, and Valino's case was not included in the list of pre-proclamation cases that would remain active after June 30, 2007. Valino then filed a motion for reconsideration addressed to the Commission en banc through its Second Division, followed by a manifestation and motion and an urgent omnibus motion, but received no reply. On October 18, 2007, the Second Division issued an order forwarding the original case folder to the Clerk of the Commission, on the view that the case had not survived under the omnibus resolution. Valino received that order on November 13, 2007, and on November 28, 2007 filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, without the assistance of counsel.

Facts

In the May 14, 2007 national and local elections, Valino, Vergara, Tomas Joson III, and Raul Mendoza vied for mayor of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. During the campaign, Valino complained about the illegal display and installation of campaign posters, streamers, and other materials in all polling places, streets, and highways of the city. On May 8, 2007, he wrote Atty. Ramos, the election officer, about these violations and reminded him of his duty to remove the illegal materials and to sanction the erring candidates. On May 11, 2007, he wrote the city chief of police, reiterating the complaint and demanding that the clean-up drive continue up to election day. On May 13 and 14, 2007, he took pictures of several polling places showing the violations. No one took any action to remove the illegal campaign materials.

After the elections, Vergara won and was proclaimed city mayor. On May 25, 2007, Valino filed with the Commission a petition for violation of the Fair Election Act against the respondents, seeking the cancellation of the proclamation of Vergara and the other elected city officials and asking that they be enjoined from exercising their duties, on the ground that they had intentionally caused the installation of illegal campaign materials outside the authorized common poster areas.

On June 28, 2007, the Commission en banc issued its omnibus resolution on pending cases, and Valino's case was not in the list of pre-proclamation cases that would remain active after June 30, 2007. Valino learned of the resolution from a newspaper and later received a photocopy. He filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission en banc through its Second Division, then a manifestation and motion, then an urgent omnibus motion, but received no reply. On October 18, 2007, the Second Division issued the assailed order forwarding the original case folder to the Clerk of the Commission.

Issues

• Whether or not Valino was denied due process when no hearing or preliminary investigation was conducted on his petition.
• Whether or not the Commission failed to follow the prescribed rules on cases of disqualification and their hearing.
• Whether or not Valino's complaint was among the pre-proclamation cases dismissed by the omnibus resolution.
• Whether or not the Commission, through its authorized representatives in Cabanatuan City, failed in its duty to implement the election laws.
• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may prosper given that Valino did not seasonably assail the omnibus resolution and instead filed a prohibited motion for reconsideration.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16 of Republic Act Number 7166 provides:

SECTION 16. Pre-proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and Municipal Offices. — Pre-proclamation cases involving provincial, city and municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof. All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.

This is the provision under which the Commission en banc issued the omnibus resolution, and it is the source of the rule that a pending pre-proclamation case is terminated at the start of the term unless the Commission finds it meritorious or the Supreme Court orders otherwise.

Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

This fixes the remedy and the thirty-day period for bringing a ruling of the Commission to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Mode of review. — A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.

This is the mode of review that Valino should have used against the omnibus resolution.

Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Time to file petition. — The petition shall be filed within thirty days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

This sets the thirty-day period, which runs because a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling is not allowed in a case that is not an election offense.

Section 1, Rule 13 of the 1993 Commission on Elections Rules of Procedure provides:

What Pleadings are Not Allowed. — The following pleadings are not allowed: x x x x d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases; x x x x

This is why Valino's motion for reconsideration did not interrupt the period and why his proper recourse was immediate certiorari.

Ruling

On the due process issue, the Court held that the Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion. The determination of the merits of a pre-proclamation case is an exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power, and the Commission en banc, in the omnibus resolution, found Valino's case unmeritorious and excluded it from the list of cases that would remain active beyond June 30, 2007. Having been excluded, Valino could no longer expect any favorable ruling from the Commission.

On the procedural issue, the Court held that the proper recourse was a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court within thirty days from notice of the omnibus resolution, under Rule 64 in connection with Rule 65. Valino instead filed a motion for reconsideration, which the rules prohibit. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

As the case before the COMELEC did not involve an election offense, reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution was not possible and petitioner had no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. For him to wait until the COMELEC denied his motion would be to allow the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari with this Court to run and expire.

The Court stressed that procedural rules are not mere technicalities and may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. The omnibus resolution, as to Valino, had become final and executory.

On the nature of the complaint, the Court held that Valino's case was technically a complaint for an election offense, namely the installation of illegal campaign materials outside the common poster areas. He failed to follow the steps for prosecuting election offenses: his letter-complaints were unverified and unsupported by affidavits and evidence; he did not file a verified complaint with the Law Department; and he asked for the annulment of the proclamations instead of a preliminary investigation and prosecution. Because the relief sought was the annulment of proclamations, the Commission treated the case as a pre-proclamation controversy, but the grounds relied upon were not proper grounds of a pre-proclamation contest. The Commission therefore properly excluded it.

On the assailed order of the Second Division, the Court held that it did not dismiss the case; it merely forwarded the original case folder to the Clerk of the Commission, an administrative act that involves no exercise of discretion. What actually dismissed the case was the omnibus resolution of the Commission en banc. No grave abuse of discretion could be imputed to the Second Division.

The Court nevertheless noted that Atty. Ramos apparently failed to furnish the Director of the Law Department a copy of Valino's complaint, as required by the rules, and should be made to explain. As to Valino, since election offenses prescribe in four years, he may still file or revive his complaint following the rules. The Court also laid down guidelines for the bench and bar: if a pre-proclamation case is excluded from the list, the remedy is a timely certiorari petition under Rules 64 and 65, regardless of whether a division has yet to rule or the en banc has yet to act on a motion for reconsideration; if the case is dismissed by a division and, on the same date or within the period to move for reconsideration, the en banc excluded it, the remedy is likewise certiorari and no motion for reconsideration need be filed; but if the en banc included the case in the list, the remedy is a motion for reconsideration with the en banc. The Court added that the Commission should rule on pre-proclamation cases individually, even by minute resolution, to dispel doubts about notice and to promote transparency.

Doctrine

A pre-proclamation case pending before the Commission is deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved, unless the Commission determines, on the evidence thus far presented, that the petition appears meritorious, or the Supreme Court issues an order in a certiorari petition. When the Commission en banc excludes a case from the list of those that shall continue, that exclusion is a final dismissal, and the aggrieved party's remedy is a timely petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in connection with Rule 65, filed within thirty days from notice. A motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling is prohibited except in election offense cases, and it does not interrupt the period. A complaint about illegal campaign materials is an election offense that must be prosecuted under the rules on prosecution of election offenses, with a verified complaint supported by affidavits and evidence filed with the Law Department; it is not a pre-proclamation controversy, whose exclusive issues are defined by the Omnibus Election Code.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with no costs; the Commission was directed to have Atty. Ramos explain his failure to comply with its rules, and Valino was advised that he may still file or revive his complaint within the four-year prescriptive period for election offenses.

Remember This

Memorize this line: exclusion of a pre-proclamation case from the omnibus resolution is a final dismissal, and the only remedy is a timely certiorari petition under Rules 64 and 65, not a prohibited motion for reconsideration. Examiners use this case to test the remedy against omnibus resolutions of the Commission en banc and the distinction between a pre-proclamation controversy and the prosecution of an election offense.