Case Digest (G.R. No. 227158)
Facts:
Joseph C. Dimapilis v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 227158, April 18, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
Joseph C. Dimapilis (petitioner) was the incumbent Punong Barangay of Barangay Pulung Maragul, Angeles City, having been first elected in October 2010. He filed a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for re‑election on October 11, 2013, swearing that he was “eligible for the office [he seeks].” He was proclaimed the winner on October 29, 2013. On October 25, 2013 the COMELEC Law Department filed a Petition for Disqualification asserting that petitioner was subject to the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office as a consequence of final Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) rulings (a Consolidated Decision dated June 23, 2009 and an Order dated November 10, 2009) that dismissed him from service for Grave Misconduct.
The COMELEC Second Division directed petitioner to file an answer (Order dated December 17, 2013). Petitioner submitted a Verified Answer cum Memorandum (February 24, 2014) arguing, inter alia, that (a) the petition improperly combined a disqualification action with a petition to cancel a CoC in contravention of the COMELEC Rules; (b) the COMELEC Law Department could not initiate a disqualification motu proprio; and (c) the RTC of Angeles City had enjoined implementation of the OMB Consolidated Decision in Civil Case No. 15325. The OMB countered that its rulings had attained finality (May 28, 2010) for failure to appeal, thereby establishing petitioner’s disqualification.
In a Resolution dated April 11, 2016, the COMELEC Second Division treated the petition as one to cancel the CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code and granted it: it cancelled petitioner’s CoC, annulled his proclamation, and directed the Barangay Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the next qualified candidate. The Division found material misrepresentation in petitioner’s sworn declaration of eligibility, upheld the Law Department’s authority to act motu proprio, and rejected invocation of the condonation doctrine (relying on the Court’s later abandonment of that doctrine in Carpio Morales v. Binay, Jr.).
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, reiterating the procedural objections and relying on a purported CA decision and RTC orders; he also invoked condonation. The COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated August 31, 2016, denied reconsideration and affirmed the Second Division, explaining t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion in cancelling petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy?
- Was the COMELEC authorized to initiate or pursue, motu proprio, proceedings to cancel a Certificate of Candidacy or disqualify a candidate on grounds established by final administrative judgments?
- Did petitioner’s re‑election operate as condonation of the misconduct found in the OMB rulings, precluding his disqualification?
- What is the legal effect of cancelling a Certificate of Candidacy on the cand...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)