Case Digest (G.R. No. 87014-16)
Facts:
Salic B. Dumarpa, Maranao C. Danganan and Saaddudin Alauya v. Jamil Dimaporo and the Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 87014-16, September 13, 1989, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Provincial Fiscal Salic B. Dumarpa, 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal Maranao C. Danganan, and Vice-Governor Saaddudin Alauya; respondents are Datu Jamil Dimaporo (intervenor/complainant below) and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC First Division, by decision dated July 11, 1988, dismissed petitions seeking annulment of Dimaporo’s proclamation as mayor of Marogong, Lanao del Sur; motions for reconsideration were timely filed and taken up by the COMELEC en banc.
Prior events: on February 3, 1988 Datu Dimaporo was proclaimed mayor-elect by the municipal Board of Canvassers. Defeated candidates filed pre-proclamation petitions (SPC No. 88-646 and SPC Nos. 88-697 / 88-697-A). Meanwhile the Secretary of Local Governments designated Maclis Balt as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Marogong on May 19, 1988; Governor Saidamen Pangarungan issued a memo on May 23, 1988 recognizing such OIC designations and lifting a suspension on processing municipal financial matters. Balt assumed OIC functions thereafter.
After the First Division’s July 11, 1988 Decision affirming Dimaporo’s proclamation, Dimaporo’s counsel requested the provincial government to recognize Dimaporo. Vice-Governor Alauya forwarded these documents to the Provincial Fiscal for legal advice. By 4th Indorsement dated August 5, 1988, 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal Danganan, with the conformity of Provincial Fiscal Dumarpa, advised that because a motion for reconsideration had been timely filed the Division’s decision was not yet final and executory — citing COMELEC procedural rules on motions for reconsideration and finality.
On August 22, 1988 Dimaporo filed with the COMELEC en banc a motion to hold the Vice-Governor and the two fiscals in contempt for issuing legal opinions and for acts allegedly suspending the effect of his proclamation and fostering confusion. The fiscal respondents and the Vice-Governor filed oppositions asserting they merely performed their legal advisory duty and acted in good faith to preserve peace and proper administration. The COMELEC en banc, by Resolution dated October 28, 1988 (authored by Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac and concurred in by Chairman Davide and other commissioners), found the petitioners guilty of contempt for unlawfully interfering with COMELEC processes and fined each P500.00. A motion for reconsideration and deposit of the aggregate fine were filed; the COMELEC denied reconsideration by Order dated January 12, 1989.
Petitioners then filed a special civil action of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the COMELEC’s contempt findings and penalties. The Office of the Solicitor General declined to defend COMELEC’s position; COMELEC filed a comment. The Supreme Court considered the record and briefs and resolved the case en banc.
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC en banc validly hold petitioners in contempt for rendering a legal opinion and recommending recognition of the OIC in the circumstances described?
- Were the acts of Vice-Governor Alauya in referring the matter and of Provincials Fiscal Dumarpa and Danganan in rendering the opinion within their lawful duties such that they could not be punished for contempt absent evidence of contumacious intent?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)