FELIPE M. SEVILLEJA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTION, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SAN MANUEL, PANGASINAN, AND LAUREANO PEREZ, RESPONDENTS.

Before Us are two petitions filed by Felipe M. Sevilleja, one
docketed as G.R. No. 52793 and the other docketed as G.R. No. 53504.

G.R. No. 52793 is an amended petition for certiorari, mandamus
and quo warranto seeking the annulment and cancellation of the proclamation of
respondent Laureano Perez as mayor of San Manuel, Pangasinan by the respondent
Municipal Board of Canvassers and praying that judgment be rendered ordering
respondents Commission on Elections and Municipal Board of Canvassers to
proclaim the herein petitioner as the duly elected mayor of said municipality.

G.R. No. 53504, on the other hand, is a petition to review on certiorari
COMELEC Resolu­tions in PDC Case No. 117 dated January 28, 1980, cancelling
petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, and in PP Case No. 491 dated March 10,
1980, dismiss­ing the petition for annulment of proclamation, mandamus,
prohibition and injunction with writ of preli­minary mandatory injunction or
restraining order.

Petitioner was the certified Nacionalista Party (NP) candidate
for mayor in the municipality of San Manuel, Pangasinan in the January 30, 1980
elections.  Laureano Perez, private
respondent in G.R. No. 52793, was the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidate
for the same position while Francisco Asuncion, Jr. and Alejandro Tuvera,
private respondents in G.R. 53504, were independent candidates for mayor and
vice-mayor, respectively.

On January 15, 1980, respondents Asuncion and Tuvera filed a
petition with the Commission on Elections docketed as PDC Case No. 117 to
disqualify herein petitioner on the ground of turncoatism alleging that the
latter was a KBL member immediately previous to the filing of his candidacy
under the NP ticket, thus, violating Article XII(C), Section 10 of the New
Constitution, in relation to Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 and PD 1661,
as amended.  To said petition was
attached an affidavit executed by one Juan Sicam, KBL Municipal Secretary of
San Manuel, Pangasinan (Annexes “D” and “D-1”, Vol. II, pp.
22-24, rec.).

On January 20, 1980, petitioner filed his veri­fied answer
thereto (Annex “E”, Vol. II, pp. 25-29), denying any affiliation with
the KBL and claiming that he was elected as NP Municipal Councilor in 1967 and
served as such up to 1971; elected in 1972 as Barangay Captain of Barangay Sto.
Domingo, San Manuel, Panga­sinan as belonging to the Nacionalista Party; and
elected in 1974 as President of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) and
being the ABC President, he was made an automatic member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of San Manuel, Pangasinan. 
Petitioner alleges that he has remained with the Nacionalista Party ever
since and this can be proven by the fact that his candidacy, as well as his
complete slate, was approved by Cipriano “Tito” Primicias, Jr.,
Provincial NP Chair­man for the Province of Pangasinan, making him the official
NP candidate for mayor in the municipality of San Manuel.  This was later substantiated by an affidavit
of Cipriano “Tito” Primicias, Jr., dated March 22, 1980, to that
effect (Annex “E”, Vol. I, p. 86, rec.).

In the morning of January 21, 1980, respondent Commission
conducted a hearing on the petition for disqualification (PDC Case No.
117).  The hearing officer received the
evidence of both parties.  Herein
respondents Asuncion and Tuvera, petitioners therein, presented the following
exhibits:  Exhibits “A”,
“A-1”, to “A-5”, minutes of the meeting of the KBL Chapter
Organization of San Manuel, Pangasinan held at the Municipal Building on
January 24, 1979; Exhibit “B2, affidavit of Juan Sicam dated December 31,
1979; Exhibits “C”, “C-1” and “C-2”, KBL
Organization of Barangay Sto. Domingo, San Manuel, Pangasinan; Exhibit
“D”, a telegram dated January 10, 1980 sent by NP Acting President
Jose J. Roy to NP Provincial Chairman, Cipriano B. Primicias, Jr. of
Pangasinan; and Exhibit “E”, affidavit dated January 19, 1980 of
Hermoso de Leon, KBL candidate for vice-mayor.

Herein petitioner, respondent therein, on the other hand,
presented the following exhibits: 
Exhibit “1”, Annex “1” of the answer, leaflet of the
private respondents and their co-candidates; Exhibit “2”, Annex
“2” of the answer, list of NP candidates in San Manuel, Pangasinan,
approved by Provincial NP Chairman, Cipriano B. Primicias, Jr.; Exhibit
“3”, Annex “3” of the answer, certificate of candidacy of
the petitioner dated January 4, 1980; Exhibit “4”, Annex
“4” of the answer, receipt of the certificate of candidacy by the
Election Registrar of San Manuel, Pangasinan; Exhibit “5”, Rules of
the KBL approved on October 25, 1979 by President Ferdi­nand E. Marcos; and
Exhibits “6” and “6-A”, verified answer of the petitioner
dated January 20, 1980 (Petition, Vol. II, pp. 4-5, rec.).

On January 28, 1980, respondent Commission on Elections resolved
to grant the petition for disqualification in PDC Case No. 117 (Item 8532,
otherwise referred to as Resolution No. 8532), in effect cancelling herein
petitioner’s certificate of candidacy (Annex “G” Vol. II, p. 40,
rec.).

Upon learning of the said resolution on January 29, 1980,
petitioner immediately filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration
and to suspend the implementation of resolution which was erroneously dated
January 30, 1980 (Annex “H”, Vol. II, pp. 41-46, rec.).

On January 30, 1980, at about 6:30 P.M., after voting hours,
Atty. Francisco Sorvida, the election registrar of San Manuel, Pangasinan,
received a telegram from the Commission on Elec­tions stating that the
certificate of candidacy of the petitioner was not given due course and that
the latter was substituted by Francisco Asuncion, Jr. as NP official candidate
for mayor.  In view thereof, the said
election registrar issued instructions to the different voting centers to
proceed with the counting of votes but to separate the NP block votes which
should neither be counted in favor of the petitioner nor Francisco Asuncion Jr.
pending verification of the said telegram and pending resolution of the motion
for reconsideration filed by petitioner in PDC Case No. 117.

The following day, February 1, 1980, the Municipal Board of
Canvassers, composed of Atty. Francisco Sorvida, as chairman, with Lolita
Pasalo, representing the office of the municipal treasurer of San Manuel,
Pangasinan and Invencion Martirez, representing the Ministry of Education and
Culture, as members, pro­claimed Laureano Perez, KBL bet, as the mayor-elect of
San Manuel, Pangasinan (Annex “D”, Vol. I, p. 85, rec.).  However, it appears from the certifications
issued by Attys. Francisco Sorvida and Rodolfo S. Itchon, provincial election
officer of Pangasinan, dated February 4, 1980 and March 11, 1980, respec­tively,
that petitioner obtained the highest number of votes, with Perez coming in
second, and Asuncion coming in last (Annexes “B” and “C”,
Vol. I, pp. 82?84, rec.).  [In his
comment filed on June 18, 1980 and in a hearing conducted on October 9, 1980
before this Court, respondent Perez disputed the veracity of these
certifications.]

February 5, 1980 was marred by the burning of the municipal
building of San Manuel, Pangasinan together with all the ballot boxes, ballots,
minutes of voting and counting of votes, tally sheets, voting paraphernalia,
election returns and other documents kept therein.

On February 11, 1980, herein petitioner filed an election protest
with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, Villasis, entitled
“Felipe M. Sevilleja vs. Laureano Perez and Francisco Asuncion, Jr.,”
docketed as Civil Case No. U-3448.  (A
similar case was filed on February 5, 1980 by respondent Asun­cion against
respondent Perez with the same court, docketed as Civil Case No. U-3446).

On February 14, 1980, herein petitioner filed with the Commission
on Elections supplemental arguments in support of the motion for
reconsideration in PDC Case No. 117 (Annex “H-1”, Vol. II, pp. 47-49,
rec.) primarily, to include as evidence the certification of Atty. Francisco
Sorvida dated February 4, 1980.

Subsequently, on February 22, 1980, the herein petitioner
likewise filed with the Commission on Elections a petition against respondent
Perez, docketed as PP Case No. 491, to annul the latter’s proclamation as mayor
of San Manuel, Pangasinan, to restrain him from assuming office scheduled on
March 3, 1980, and to declare petitioner instead as the duly elected mayor of
said municipality (Annex “D”, Vol. I, pp. 20-­31, rec.).

On February 29, 1980, Sevilleja filed with this Court a petition
for certiorari, prohibition, injunc­tion, mandamus, quo warranto,
with writ of preliminary mandatory injunction or restraining order docketed as
G.R. No. 52793, seeking to restrain and prohibit respondent Perez from assuming
office as mayor of San Manuel, Pangasinan and to annul his proclamation made by
respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers on February 1, 1980, raising as
principal ground therein grave abuse of discretion in proclaiming respondent
Perez as mayor-elect of San Manuel. 
Petitioner likewise prayed for judgment ordering respondent Commis­sion
on Elections and Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim him as the duly
elected mayor of said municipality (Vol. I, pp. 3-16, rec.).  [In view of subsequent developments, this
petition was later amended on May 5, 1980 to limit the same to certiorari,
mandamus, and quo warranto (Vol. I, pp. 66-80, rec.)].

On March 3, 1980, respondent Perez took his oath and assumed
office as municipal mayor of San Manuel.

On March 10, 1980, petitioner filed a second supplemental
arguments in support of the motion for reconsideration in PDC Case No. 117 to
include the certification of Atty. Rodolfo S. Itchon as evidence (Annex
“H-2”, Vol. II, pp. 50-52, rec.).

On the same date respondent Commission on Elections resolved to
dismiss the petition in PP Case No. 491 (Item 9532, otherwise referred to as
Resolution No. 9532) on the ground that the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan has already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the case con­sidering
that petition did not make any reservation to the effect that he is filing said
election protest as a precautionary measure in case the petition which he will
file in the Commission on Elections is denied (Vol. I, pp. 128-129, rec.).  It likewise resolved to deny the motion for
reconsideration in PDC Case No. 117 for lack of merit (Item 9542 or Resolution
No. 9542) [Annex “K”, Vol. II, p. 56, rec.].

Consequently, Sevilleja filed with this Court another petition on
April 1, 1980, docketed as G.R. No. 53504, seeking to review on certiorari
Comelec Resolution No. 8532 in PDC Case No. 117 dated January 28, 1980, on the
ground that respondent Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in
not giving due course to petitioner’s certificate of candidacy.  Petitioner assigns the following as errors:

I.      That respondent Commission on Elections erred
and gravely abused its discretion in admitting and in not rejecting Exhibits A,
A-1, to A-5, C-1, C-2 and D of the private respondents, despite vigorous
objection and opposition of petitioner’s counsel, on the ground that the said
exhibits were not attached to the letter complaint of the private respondents
as required by Resolution No. 1428 issued on January 7, 1980 by the respondent
Commission itself;

II.      That assuming but without conceding that the
said exhibits should be admitted, respondent Com­mission erred and gravely
abused its discretion in finding that peti­tioner
was a former KBL and was dis­qualified by Jose J. Roy, Acting NP President and
substituted by respondent Asuncion, on the ground that said conclusion is based
entirely upon speculation and is manifestly mistaken and the respondent
Commission went beyond the issues of the case;

III.     That respondent Commission erred and
gravely abused its discre­tion in not finding that petitioner was a
Nacionalista and still remains to be in the Nacionalista Party;

IV.    That respondent Commission erred and gravely
abused its dis­cretion in not giving due course to the certificate of candidacy
of the petitioner and in finding that he violated Section 10, Article XII, C,
of the Philippine Constitution, in relation to Section 4, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 and Presidential Decree No.
1661, as amended.

V.     Finally, that respondent Commission erred
and gravely abused its discretion in not setting aside its resolutions, one
dated January 28, 1980 and the other dated March 10, 1980, not giving due
course to the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner for the reason that
the petitioner won the election. 
(Petition, Vol. II, p. 8, rec.).

On April 23, 1980, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
Branch V, Villasis, issued an order holding in abeyance Civil Case No. U-3448
until G.R. No. 53504 shall have been finally resolved by this Court (Annex
“I”, Vol. I, p. 90, rec.).  [On
the same day, the lower court issued an order to withdraw the election protest
in Civil Case No. U-3446 upon motion of respondent Asuncion, protestant
therein, “in view of the peculiar cir­cumstances surrounding this case
whereby the municipal building where the ballot boxes were kept and stored
after the elections was totally burned, together with said ballot boxes, and
for this reason, it would be impractical and impossible for the court to
determine the ground for the protest such as the tampering of ballots;
recounting of ballots intended for one party in favor of the other party; etc.,
and because there is a pending petition with the Commission on Elections in
Manila for the holding of a special election in the municipality of San Manuel
x x x” (Annex “H”, Vol. I, p. 89, rec.).  The said petition however for annulment of
proclamation and holding of special elections filed by respondent Asuncion
against respondent Perez was dismissed by the Commission on Elections in a
resolu­tion dated August 27, 1980, for lack of jurisdiction and lack of merit.]

The fundamental issue in this controversy is whether or not
respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in
cancelling petitioner’s certificate of candidacy.  The ground relied upon by the respondent
Commission is Article XII(C), Section 10 of the New Constitution which provides
that “No elective public officer may change his political party
affiliation during his term of office and no candidate for any elective public
office may change his political party affiliation within six (6) months
immediately preceding or follow­ing an election,” in relation to Section 4
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 (An Act Governing the Election of Local Government
Officials) which adopted the aforequoted constitutional provision as a special
disqualification and Section I of P.D. 1661, as amended, which imple­mented the
same.

OUR discussion will focus on the assignment of errors raised in
G.R. No. 53504.

Petitioner assigns as first error respondent Commission’s
admission of the exhibits of respondents Asuncion and Tuvera despite
petitioner’s objection thereto on the ground that said exhibits were not
attached to the letter/petition as required by Section 2 of Comelec Resolution
No. 1428, issued on January 7, 1980 (re: 
guidelines on the filing to disqualify candidates in the January 30,
1980 elections), which requires that “a sworn petition seeking to dis­qualify
any candidate in the January 30, 1980 elections shall be filed with the
Commission on Elections in ten (10) legible copies, together with all the
supporting documents or evidence if any.” He contends that since it is
well settled that hearings before the respondent Commission are summary in
nature and the usual method of presenting testimonial and documentary evidence
before the ordinary courts of justice is not strictly followed, private
respondents should have attached or annexed the said exhibits and other
supporting documents or evidence in their letter/petition in order to prevent
surprises and to enable petitioner to defend himself fully.  For which reasons, according to petitioner, re­spondent
Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting private
respondents’ evidence.

This assignment of error raises no substantial argument.  Comelec Resolution No. 1428 could not have
been intended to deprive parties of their right to present evidence on account
of failure to attach or annex exhibits in their petition for
disqualification.  Obviously, the said
resolution is merely directory; for otherwise, it would be tantamount to denial
of one of the cardinal requirements of procedural due process as laid down in
the oft-cited case of Ang Tibay vs. The Court of Industrial Relations and
National Labor Union, Inc. (69 Phil. 635), namely, the right to a hearing which
includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case
and submit evidence in support thereof. 
The summary nature of a proceeding cannot be construed so as to defeat
this fundamental right of an individual. 
Henceforth, there can be no grave abuse of discretion in the admission
of private respondents’ exhibits. 
Neither can petitioner claim that he was denied due process as a result
thereof.  Petitioner was given an
opportunity to controvert the facts established by private respon­dents’
evidence not only during the hearing but also in his motion for
reconsideration.  As a matter of fact, he
submitted additional documentary evidence in support of the said motion but the
same did not warrant the reversal of the challenged resolution.

The second, third and fourth errors assigned by petitioner
essentially boil down to a single alle­gation: 
that respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of
discretion in resolving that petitioner was a turncoat.  This, actually, is the most vital argument
relied upon by petitioner.  However, We
find the same to be devoid of merit.

Records disclose that a Comelec hearing in PDC Case No. 117 was
conducted in the morning of January 21, 1980. 
Respondents Asuncion and Tuvera, as petitioners therein, presented
evidence in support of their letter/petition (the question of admissibility is
now beyond dispute); while petitioner, respondent therein, presented evidence
in support of his answer already filed with respondent Commission.  On the basis of these proofs, respondent Commission
issued Comelec Resolution No. 8532 dated January 28, 1980, cancelling
petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, the text of which reads as follows:

“The records of this case show that respondent was a former
KBL member in his capacity as an ABC President in the Municipality of San
Manuel, Pangasinan (Exhibits ‘A’, ‘A-2’); that he was a Barangay Captain in the
KBL Organization, Barangay Sto. Domingo, San Manuel, Pangasinan; and thereafter
was acting as Chairman, KBL Organiza­tion Barangay Sto. Domingo, San Manuel,
Pangasinan (Exhibits ‘C-1’ and ‘C-2’); and that previously respondent filed his
Certificate of Candidacy as Nacionalista Party Candidate for Mayor in the Muni­cipality
of San Manuel, Pangasinan, however, on January 10, 1980, the Nacionalista Party,
acting thru Jose J. Roy, Acting NP President, disqualified and replaced him by
Dr. Asuncion in view of his ‘(respondent)’ reported campaign for KBL Candidates
‘(Exhibits 3 and B).’ By way of answer, respondent admitted that he was an
Adhoc Chairman, Nacio­nalista Party, San Manuel, Pangasinan, who asked the
Provincial NP Chairman of the province of Pangasinan for approval of his list
of official Nacionalista Party (NP) Candidates in the Municipality of San
Manuel, Pangasinan (Exhibits ‘2’ and ‘2-B’); that the Comelec Registrar of San
Manuel, Pangasinan certified that respondent was the NP official can­didate for
Mayor in the Municipality of San Manuel, Pangasinan (Exhibits ‘4’ and ‘4-A2’).

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission, RESOLVED to grant the
petition, and pursuant to Section 10, Article XII, C, Constitution of the
Philippines, in rela­tion to Section 4, Pambansa Blg. 52 and Presidential
Decree No. 1661, as amended, the certificate of candidacy filed by re­spondent
FELIPE M. SEVILLEJA for Mayor in the Municipality of San Manuel, Panga­sinan
shall not be given due course for having changed his party affiliation within
six months before the election.” (Vol. II, p. 40, rec.).

Evidently, respondent Commission resolved to disqualify
petitioner on the basis of the evidence or documents presented by private
respondents vis–a–vis those submitted by petitioner.  It must be pointed out that although
petitioner denies member­ship with the KBL and alleges continuous affiliation
with the NP, he was not able to present any substantial evidence to prove his
contention.  Moreover, his acti­vities
belie the same.  As the evidence reveals,
peti­tioner attended the organizational meeting of the KBL Chapter of San
Manuel, Pangasinan on January 24, 1979 and in that said meeting, he willingly accepted mem­bership in the Board of
Directors of the KBL.  He was in fact one
of those who signed the minutes of the said meeting.  It was likewise established that petitioner
was the chairman of the KBL Chapter in Barangay Sto. Domingo of the same
municipality.  Then, there was the
telegram of Senator Jose J. Roy, National NP Chairman to Cipriano
“Tito” Primicias Jr., the tenor of which is clearly unfavorable to
peti­tioner as it seeks his replacement by respondent Asuncion in view of his
reported campaign for KBL candidates in the provincial level.  It is worth noting that the authenticity of
these documents was never raised in issue.

All these relevant evidence weighed heavily against petitioner,
setting clear that one’s poli­tical affiliation is primarily determined by his
active participation in the party’s political activities.  Respondent Commission, on the basis of the
foregoing, concluded that he was a KBL. 
His subsequent affiliation, therefore, with the Nacionalista Party, as evidenced
by his certificate of candidacy, and by his own admission violated Article
XII(C), Section 10 of the New Constitution. 
This being the case, respondent Commission could not have gravely abused
its discretion in cancelling petitioner’s candidacy.

The above conclusion is in accord with this Court’s ruling in the
cases of Evasco vs. Obico and Commission on Elections (No. 52401, promulgated
on January 28, 1980), Gabatan vs. Commission on Elections (No. L-32381,
promulgated on January 26, 1980) and Santos vs. Commission on Elections, et al.
(No. 52390, promulgated on March 31, 1981) where it was unequiv­ocably stated
that “active involvement in KBL political affairs as a party, such as
being a member of the Muni­cipal Committee thereof was the primary and decisive
consideration upon which ‘turncoatism’ was found to have been committed in the
aforesaid cases.”

Petitioner’s argument that his membership with the KBL was
automatic because he was made member of the Sangguniang Bayan by virtue of his
being the president of the Association of Barangay Captains, is untenable.  The fact that he remained a member thereof
indicates a willingness to be so bound. 
As an additional argument, petitioner cited the case of Lakas ng Bayan
vs. Commission on Elections (82 SCRA 196 [1978]) wherein this Court advanced
the view that the KBL is not a political party but an umbrella
organization.  Petitioner seems to have
overlooked the fact that despite such pronouncement, the Nacionalista Party has
never ceased to be an independent political party, with all the rights and
privileges appertaining thereto.  By his
actuations, it is unmistakable that petitioner had chosen to identify himself
with the KBL as a distinct political entity; otherwise he would have made
reservation that he is keeping his affiliation with the NP or retaining his
status as member therein.  Moreover, the
question of whether or not the KBL is a political party has been fore­closed by
subsequent political developments.  As
significantly observed by this Court in Santos vs. Commission on Elections, et
al., supra -?

“Under its Resolution No. 1406, promulgated December 22, 1979
laying down rules on the accreditation of political parties, Section 1 thereof
provides that any duly registered political party in the April 7, 1978 election
shall be entitled to accre­ditation. 
Pursuant to this Resolu­tion, KBL was duly accredited sepa­rately from
the NP.  That KBL had always been a
political party or aggrupation can, therefore, no longer be open to
question.  Were KBL not such a political
party, block voting as was declared valid in the case of Peralta vs. COMELEC,
82 SCRA 30, G.R. No. L-47771, March 11, 1978, could not have been availed of,
by it, as it unquestionably did, in the 1978 elections.  For block voting is voting for a political
party.”

Moreover, after the decision in the case of LABAN vs. COMELEC (82
SCRA 196 [1978]), the KBL was transformed into a distinct political party and
ceased as a mere umbrella organization, as shown by subsequent political
developments.  It is significant to note
that, after the April, 1978 election, in the Interim Batasang Pambansa,
majority of the assemblymen are identified and identify themselves with pride
as KBL members sporting t-shirts, hats and pins labelled KBL; while the handful
of opposition die-hards identify themselves as members of the Nacionalista
Party or Pusyon Bisaya or Mindanao Alliance. 
Much later, until December, 1979, the majority members of the IBP kept
referring to themselves as KBL members and held caucuses or meetings to discuss
vital issues and proposed legislations as such KBL members.  On the floor of the IBP, the members of the
KBL identify themselves as such and the KBL has been referred to as the party
of the administration.  The actuations of
the organizers, leaders and members of the KBL established the said party as a de
facto political party since April, 1978. 
The acts performed by the KBL leaders and their members, not the
formality of its registration as a party, should determine the commencement of
its existence as such politi­cal party. 
It has been held with reference to illegal associations that the nature
and true character of an organization are oftentimes deter­mined by the
speeches and activities of its leaders and members rather than by its constitution
and by-laws (Mr. Justice Mariano Albert in People vs. Ramos, CA-G.R. No. 5318,
Dec. 28, 1940, 40 O.G. 2305, Sept. 30, 1941).

Petitioner likewise assails the constitu­tionality of P.D. No.
1661 on the ground that it violates the prohibition against ex post
facto law.  As amended, Section 1
thereof provides that “it shall be unlawful for any registered or
accredited political party to nominate and/or support as its official candidate
any person belonging to another accredited or registered party unless he has
affiliated with the nominating party at least six months before the
election.” In the Santos case above-cited, We held that:

“The decree could by no stretch of the clear scope of the
novel con­stitutional concept, be banned under the ex post facto
law clause of the Constitution, for it merely provides for a certain
disqualification of a candidate aspiring to be chosen to an elective office
which, being a mere privilege, is a fit subject for reasonable statutory
regulation, clearly not penal in character. 
As defined, ex post facto law is limited in its
scope only to matters criminal in nature” (citing several cases).

Verily, there is factual as well as legal basis in respondent
Commission’s conclusion that petitioner was a turncoat.

The futility of the last assignment of error is readily
apparent.  Petitioner alleges that
respondent Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in not setting
aside its Resolutions in PDC Case No. 117, one dated January 28, 1980 and the
other dated March 10, 1980, not giving due course to petitioner’s certificate
of candidacy, for the reason that the petitioner won the election.  Petitioner contends that since he had already
won the mayoralty race in San Manuel, Pangasinan, the disqualification case
against him has become moot and academic. 
His assump­tion of victory finds support in the certifications issued by
Atty. Sorvida and Atty. Itchon, local and provincial election registrars
therein, respectively, which provide the following data:

(Annex “B” of
the Amended Petition – Certification of Atty. Sorvida dated February 4, 1980)

1.       Felipe Sevilleja
—————- 4,832 votes

2.       Laureano Perez
————– 4,755 votes

3.       Francisco Asuncion
Jr. —– 3,996 votes

(Annex “C” of
the Amended Petition – Certification of Atty. Itchon dated March 11, 1980)

1.       Felipe Sevilleja
—————- 4,823 votes

2.       Laureano Perez
————— 4,755 votes

3.       Francisco Asuncion
Jr. —— 3,633 votes

The discrepancy between the two certifications as to the number
of votes received by candidate Sevi­lleja was explained by petitioner himself
as being purely a clerical error while that respecting the votes of respondent
Asuncion was attributed to the NP block votes which were first segregated from
the rest of the ballots as per instruction of Atty. Sorvida.  This Court is not convinced.  In certifications of this character, figures
are of primary importance.  It is rather
surprising that a typographical error should exist without any further explanation
from the person certifying it.  Neither
could the inclusion or exclusion of the 111 NP block votes sufficiently explain
the discrepancy in the second instance, as, obviously, the application of
simple mathematical compu­tations would yield results different from those
furnished by either certifications. 
Indeed, there is every reason to doubt the veracity of these
figures.  In the hearing before this
Court held on October 9, 1980, it turned out that when Atty. Sorvida signed the
certification, the space provided for the number of votes for Sevilleja was
left blank, giving the impression that it was filled in only after he had
certified it.  On the other hand, the
certification of Atty. Itchon was prepared and executed in the absence of other
parties.  Counsel for respondent Perez
pointed out that the total number of votes appearing in the said certifications
exceeded the total number of voters who actually cast their ballots in San
Manuel.  In any case, the figures appearing
therein do not tally with those contained in the copies of the election returns
transmitted to the respondent Commission. 
It must be noted that although the ballots and other documents were
burned together with the municipal building, respondent Commission was already
in possession of copies of the election returns from San Manuel from which one
can safely base the results of the elections held therein, absent any fraud,
terrorism or other election irregular­ities. 
The records do not contain any concrete evidence to prove the commission
of election irregularities during the elections in said municipality.  These circumstances are significant if only
to show the unreliability of the certifications from which the herein peti­tioner
based his alleged fact of winning.  The
more important consideration would be the resolution of January 28, 1980.  It is beyond dispute that the
disqualification of petitioner came two days before the January 30, 1980
elections.  The said resolution was final
and executory in nature following the provi­sion of the 1978 Election Code (P.D. No. 1296), Section 175
specifically, which states that “the Commission shall be the sole judge of
all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings
shall be final and executory.  x x”
Strictly, therefore, the local election registrar, upon receipt and
verification of communications from the respondent Commission informing him of
its reso­lution cancelling petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, should not
have counted the votes for Sevilleja nor should have issued instructions
contrary to the Comelec order.  His acts
were clearly in disregard of the aforequoted electoral provision.  Petitioner, on the other hand, cannot claim
lack of notice of said reso­lution. 
Although the official copy of said resolution was allegedly received
only on February 25, 1980, peti­tioner was sufficiently informed thereof prior
to the elections.  In his affidavit dated
March 31, 1980 (Annex “M”, Vol. II, p. 58, rec.), he stated that he
learned of the said resolution on January 29, 1980 and filed on the same date a
motion for clarification and/or reconsideration which was erroneously dated
January 30, 1980.  This motion for
reconsideration was denied by the March 10, 1980 resolution of the Comelec,
thereby affirming the January 28, 1980 reso­lution.  Furthermore, We have established that the
disqualification was warranted by the facts and the law and that, therefore, no
grave abuse of discretion could have been committed by respondent Commission in
rendering the challenged resolution. 
Consequently, respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers could not have
acted with grave abuse of discretion in proclaiming respondent Perez as
mayor-elect of San Manuel.  This, in
effect, settles the issue in G.R. No. 52793.

The question of jurisdiction is brought in issue as a result of
the dismissal of Sevilleja’s petition in PP Case No. 491 which is for annulment of respondent Perez’ proclamation as mayor of San Manuel,
Pangasinan, etc., on the ground that the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
Branch V, Villasis has already acquired jurisdiction over the case and no
reservation was made to the effect that the election protest in the lower court
was filed ex abundanti cautela.  This refers to Comelec Resolution No. 9532
dated March 10, 1980.  As borne out by
the records, the election protest in the lower court was filed on February 11,
1980 (Civil Case No. U-3448) without reservation while the petition in PP Case
No. 491 was filed on February 22, 1980. 
There is no question that both actions are related, raising
substantially the same issues and basically praying for the annul­ment of the
proclamation of respondent Perez. 
Obviously, the Court of First Instance already acquired exclusive
authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of respondent Perez and the
validity of his (Perez’) proclamation by respondent Municipal Board of
Canvassers on February 1, 1980.  As a
matter of fact, the said court acquired juris­diction over the case as early as
February 5, 1980 when respondent Asuncion filed therein an election protest
against respondent Perez (Civil Case No. U-3446) without reservation.  This being the case, there is no reason to
depart from the well-settled rule that “once a court of first instance has
acquired jurisdiction by virtue of the filing of an election protest, all ques­tions
relative thereto will be decided in the case itself and not in another
proceeding before a different forum.” This is in consonance with the
ruling in the cases of Acain and Malimit vs. Board of Canvassers, Agusan, et
al. (108 Phil. 165; Reyes vs. Reyes & Commission on Elections, 22 SCRA 485
[1968]; and Filart vs. Commission on Elections, 53 SCRA 457 [1973]).  Respondent Commission, in recognition of the
lower court’s prior jurisdiction, correctly dismissed the petition.

WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED AND
COMELEC RESOLUTIONS NOS. 8532 AND 9542 IN PDC CASE NO. 117, DATED JANUARY 28,
1980 AND MARCH 10, 1980, RESPECTIVELY, AND COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9532, ALSO DATED
MARCH 10, 1980, ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  NO
COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., did not take
part.

Teehankee, J., dissents in a
separate opinion.

Aquino, J., see attached
concurrence.

Abad Santos, J., on leave.