ROQUE FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NOBELITO RAPISORA, RESPONDENTS.

Flores versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari brought by Roque Flores against the Commission on Elections and the private respondent Nobelito Rapisora, arising from a barangay election protest over the office of punong barangay in Poblacion, Tayum, Abra. Flores asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission on Elections, which had dismissed his appeal on the ground that it had no power to review the decision of the regional trial court. The case matters far beyond one barangay: the Court strikes down a provision of the barangay election law as unconstitutional, clarifies the appellate jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections over barangay election contests, and settles who may claim the equity-of-the-incumbent rule when the ballots bear only a common surname.

Procedural History

Nobelito Rapisora filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum, Abra. That court sustained the protest, deducted two votes as stray from the total of Roque Flores, and installed Rapisora as punong barangay. Flores appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Abra, which affirmed the challenged decision in its entirety. Flores then went to the Commission on Elections, but his appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Commission had no power to review the decision of the regional trial court. From that dismissal, Flores elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

In the barangay elections held on 28 March 1989 in Barangay Poblacion, Tayum, Abra, the board of canvassers proclaimed Roque Flores as having received the highest number of votes for kagawad. Under the law then in force, the candidate with the highest number of votes for kagawad becomes punong barangay by operation of law, and so Flores became punong barangay.

Nobelito Rapisora, who placed second with 463 votes, exactly one vote less than Flores, protested the election. The contested ballots were four votes cast for the name "Flores" only, without any distinguishing first name or initial. There were two candidates bearing that surname: the petitioner Roque Flores and another candidate, Anastacio Flores. The municipal circuit trial court refused to credit the four votes to either of them, treating them as stray, and after deducting two votes from the petitioner's total, installed Rapisora as punong barangay. The regional trial court agreed that all four votes should have been considered invalid rather than divided equally, reducing the petitioner's total to 462 and demoting him to second place.

The petitioner's central claim was that he remained the incumbent punong barangay on election day and was therefore entitled to the four contested votes under the equity-of-the-incumbent rule. The Commission on Elections had earlier issued a resolution providing that incumbent barangay captains, whether elected, appointed or designated, are deemed resigned upon filing their certificates of candidacy for the office of kagawad, which is another office.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of municipal or metropolitan trial courts in barangay election contests, such that the provision of the barangay election law requiring appeal to the regional trial court is unconstitutional.
• Whether or not the petitioner, having appealed to the regional trial court in reliance on the presumed validity of that law, may nonetheless be treated as having appealed directly to the Commission on Elections.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections resolution deeming incumbent barangay captains resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy for kagawad is a valid implementation of the statute.
• Whether or not the petitioner was still the incumbent punong barangay on election day and thus entitled to the benefits of the equity-of-the-incumbent rule over the four contested votes.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6679 provides:

There shall be a sangguniang barangay in every duly constituted barangay which shall be the legislative body and shall be composed of seven (7) kagawads to be elected by the registered voters of the barangay. The candidate who obtains the highest number of votes shall be the punong barangay.

This is the provision that made the petitioner punong barangay by operation of law upon topping the kagawad race.

Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6679 provides:

Incumbent elective officials running for the same office shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. They shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified.

This is the statutory protection the petitioner invokes, and the Court measures the challenged resolution against it.

Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6679 provides:

A sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay official may be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for a barangay office within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the result of the election. The trial court shall decide the election protest within thirty (30) days after the filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional trial court which shall decide the issue within thirty (30) days from receipt of the appeal and whose decision on questions of fact shall be final and non-appealable. For purposes of the barangay elections, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed.

The clause routing appeals to the regional trial court is the very clause the Court strikes down as contrary to the Constitution.

Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution provides:

Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.

This is the constitutional text that both confers appellate jurisdiction on the Commission over barangay contests decided by courts of limited jurisdiction and limits the finality of its rulings.

Section 211(2) of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

If there are two or more candidates with the same full name, first name or surname and one of them is the incumbent, and on the ballot is written only such full name, first name or surname, the vote shall be counted in favor of the incumbent.

This is the equity-of-the-incumbent rule on which the petitioner's claim to the four contested votes rests.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6679 is constitutionally defective insofar as it provides that barangay election contests decided by the municipal or metropolitan trial court shall be appealed to the regional trial court. Municipal and metropolitan trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and under Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution their decisions in barangay election contests fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections. The Court relies on its earlier ruling in Luison versus Garcia, holding that the doctrine laid down there under the 1935 Constitution remains controlling under the present charter as the Court's interpretation of that constitutional provision. The Court makes this declaration even though the law was not squarely challenged, disregarding the technical obstacles so that the flaw may be brought to the attention of Congress and corrected before the next barangay elections.

On the second issue, the Court notes that the petitioner was merely acting in accordance with the statute when he appealed to the regional trial court, and that he had a right to rely on its presumed validity. In fairness to him, the Court considers his appeal to the Commission on Elections as having been made directly from the municipal circuit trial court, disregarding the detour to the regional trial court. His appeal was therefore validly made under the appellate jurisdiction of the Commission, and the Commission's decision was in turn properly elevated to the Supreme Court on certiorari. The Court explains that the constitutional provision making the Commission's rulings final, executory and not appealable applies only to questions of fact and not of law, and was not intended to divest the Supreme Court of its authority to resolve questions of law.

On the third issue, the Court upholds the challenged resolution as a reasonable and valid implementation of Section 8. The resolution expresses the mandate that incumbent elected officials running for the same position are not considered resigned, and its authority is found in the power of the Commission to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the laws it is required to enforce and administer. The Court finds substantial distinctions between the two offices: the punong barangay is essentially an executive officer, while the kagawad is vested mainly with legislative functions. The petitioner was elected barangay captain directly and separately in 1982, not as one of the six councilmen, and so he was correctly deemed resigned upon filing his certificate of candidacy for kagawad in 1989.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that the petitioner was no longer the incumbent punong barangay on election day and so was not entitled to the benefits of the equity-of-the-incumbent rule. His certificate of candidacy was for kagawad, and the basic position disputed in the barangay election was that of kagawad, the office of punong barangay being conferred only by operation of law on the candidate placing first. The four votes cast for "Flores" were therefore correctly considered stray, making the private respondent the punong barangay for having received the highest number of votes for kagawad.

Doctrine

First, the Commission on Elections has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction, and a statute routing such appeals to the regional trial court is unconstitutional. Second, the constitutional rule that the Commission's rulings in municipal and barangay election contests are final, executory and not appealable applies only to questions of fact, not to questions of law, which remain within the Supreme Court's certiorari power. Third, the equity-of-the-incumbent rule under Section 211(2) of the Omnibus Election Code benefits only a candidate who actually holds the office on election day; a punong barangay who files a certificate of candidacy for kagawad is deemed resigned, because the two offices are substantially distinct and the law removes the advantage he would otherwise enjoy.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed; Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6679 was declared unconstitutional insofar as it requires appeal to the regional trial court, the challenged Commission resolution was declared valid, and Nobelito Rapisora was declared the duly elected punong barangay of Poblacion, Tayum, Abra.

Remember This

Memorize the line that barangay election protests go on appeal to the Commission on Elections, not to the regional trial court, and that the Commission's rulings are final only on questions of fact. Examiners use this case on the appellate jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections and on the equity-of-the-incumbent rule.