G.R. No. 56968. April 30, 1984
RODOLFO DE LEON, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND CONRADO LINDO, RESPONDENTS.
FERNANDO, C.J.:
dictates the outcome of this petition to review a decision of
respondent Commission on Elections, dismissing a case for the
disqualification of respondent Conrado Lindo to run as a candidate for
municipal mayor of Ternate, Cavite in the 1980 Elections. Petitioner is
the duly-elected mayor, performing his functions after being
proclaimed. His undue insistence on the matter still being adjudged
manifests a failure to abide by the generally accepted principle that a
pre-proclamation controversy should be laid to rest, there being the
remedy of a protest or a quo warranto proceeding that could be utilized.
The petition must fail.
The facts that gave rise to this petition for review may be summarized
thus: In the January 30, 1980 elections for the position of mayor for
the municipality of Ternate, Cavite, petitioner Rodolfo de Leon was the
KBL candidate while respondent Conrado Lindo, also from the KBL, was the
independent candidate for the same position.[2]
On January 25, 1980, there was a verified letter-petition (PDC No.
390) filed with respondent Commission by petitioner to disqualify
respondent Lindo on the ground that he allegedly lacked the six-month
residence requirement, it being alleged that said respondent was a
resident of Noveleta, Cavite prior to the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.[3] There was, in
addition a supplemental letter from petitioner filed on January 28,
1980, with a certification dated January 25, 1980 of one Amado Melo,
allegedly the barangay captain of San Rafael II, Noveleta, Cavite, that
“as per record of Census on file in this barangay, Spouses Conrado Lindo
and Cdrazon Zapanta has (sic) been residents” of said barangay “since
1969 up to the present.”[4] The election took place on January 30, 1980 without such petition being decided.[5]
That was followed on February 5, 1980 with petitioner filing three
separate certifications coming respectively from the Municipal Treasurer
of Ternate, Cavite, Barangay Captain of the poblacion of Ternate, and
Election Clerk of same municipality.[6] In the meanwhile, petitioner had been proclaimed the duly-elected mayor of Ternate and had assumed the position.[7]
On February 28, 1980, respondent Commission denied the petition for
disqualification, the resolution stating that “petitioner failed to
present sufficient evidence against herein respondent.”[8] There was a motion for reconsideration.[9]
As stated above, it was denied for lack of merit the reason being that
“petitioner was already proclaimed Mayor of Ternate, Cavite, had
assumed the position and is now discharging the duties of his office so
that this pre-proclamation controversy has become moot and academic.
Also, the certification issued by the Election Registrar of Ternate
(Exhibit 2) and the list of voters (Exhibits 2-A, 2B and 2b-1) which
have not been controverted show that Conrado Lindo voted in Voting
Center No. 3-A Ternate, Cavite during the April 7, 1978 IBP elections
and January 30, 1980 local elections.”[10]
Clearly then, respondent Commission cannot be faulted for deciding the
way it did. It did so in accordance with the settled law on the
subject. No useful purpose would be served by a petition of this
character, taking up its time when its dismissal was the most
appropriate response. There was no legitimate grievance that petitioner
could show. The votes in his favor were counted; he was duly
proclaimed; he is in actual discharge of his functions as municipal
mayor. There is, therefore, no reason for prolonging a pre-proclamation
controversy.
Petitioner raised the question of the alleged constitutional infirmity
contending that there was no observance of procedural due process. This
argument is devoid of merit. There was in his original letter dated
January 25, 1980 to respondent Commission seeking to disqualify
respondent Lindo no document that would justify his assertion of his
opponent being a resident of Noveleta. On January 28, 1980, in his
supplemental-letter petition, there was attached a certification dated
January 25, 1980 of the barangay captain of San Rafael II, Noveleta to
the effect that respondent “has been a resident” of said barangay “since
1969 up to the present”, and on that basis he requested “the immediate
and favorable attention” of COMELEC. To bolster his case, there was a
second supplemental letter petition dated February 1, 1980, petitioner
with three more certifications to support his claim that respondent
Lindo was a resident of Noveleta and, with the prayer that respondent
Commission disqualify respondent Lindo.
As set forth in the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General:
“There is nothing in all these three letter-petitions where petitioner
reserved to present additional evidence. He did not move for formal
hearing of the case so that he could present testimonial evidence. It
is implicit in these letters that petitioner wanted respondent COMELEC
to immediately disqualify respondent Lindo on the basis of the documents
he had attached to his supplemental letters. When therefore COMELEC
found on the basis of those documents that there was no sufficient
factual basis for the charge that respondent Lindo did not meet the
residence requirement of the law, COMELEC only acted pursuant to the
obvious prayer of petitioner to resolve the case expeditiously on the
basis of the evidence presented by him.”[11]
Petitioner has, therefore, only himself to blame. He was quite resolute
in his belief that the documentary evidence was sufficient. As noted
in respondent Commission’s order denying the motion for reconsideration:
“Also, the certification issued by the Election Registrar of Ternate,
(Exhibit 2) and the list of voters (Exhibits 2-A, 2B and 3b1) which have
not been controverted show that Conrado Lindo voted in Voting Center
No. 3-A Ternate, Cavite during the April 7, 1978 IBP elections and
January 30, 1980 local elections.”[12]
It is, likewise, a well-settled principle that the filing of a motion
for reconsideration cures a defect based on the alleged lack of
procedural due process.
In the light of the above, it cannot be rationally concluded that there
was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Commission
when it dismissed the petition for the disqualification of respondent
Lindo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., petitioner’s action for the disqualification of
his defeated rival has clearly become moot. Joins Mr. Justice Abad
Santos’ vote for imposition of treble costs.
Makasiar, in the result.
Abad Santos, J., this is a frivolous petition which he would have summarily dismissed with treble costs against the petitioner.
De Castro and Escolin, JJ., did not take part.
[1] G.R. No. 53532, July 25,
1980, 98 SCRA 790. Cf, Potencion v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52527, Sept. 4,
1980, 99 SCRA 575; Villegas v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52463, Sept. 4, 1980,
99 SCRA 582; Arcenas v. Comelec, G.R. No. 54039, Nov. 28, 1980, 101 SCRA
437; Singco v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52830, Nov. 28, 1980, 101 SCRA 420;
Aguinaldo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 53953, Jan. 5, 1981, 102 SCRA 1; Laguda
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 53747, Feb. 20, 1981, 102 SCRA 857; Agcaoili v.
Santos and Comelec, G.R. No. 52791, Feb. 26, 1981, 103 SCRA 350;
Faderanga v. Comelec, G.R. No. 55938, June 26, 1981, 105 SCRA 123;
Festin v. Faderanga, G.R. No. 57351, Jan. 16, 1982, 111 SCRA 1; Disini
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 52502, Dec. 30, 1982, 119 SCRA 511; Resurreccion v.
Poblete, G.R. No. 57219-20, Jan. 4, 1984.
[2] Petition, Statement of Facts, 1st par.
[3] Ibid, 2nd par.
[4] Ibid, Annex H and H-1.
[5] Ibid, 3rd par.
[6] Ibid, Annexes I-1, I-2, and I-3.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, Annex A.
[9] Ibid, Annex B.
[10] Ibid, Annex C.
[11] Comment, 5.
[12] Annex C to Petition.