Title
Dumarpa vs. Dimaporo
Case
G.R. No. 87014-16
Decision Date
Sep 13, 1989
Legal opinion on mayoralty status by provincial officials deemed not contemptuous; SC reversed COMELEC's ruling, citing lack of malice or intent to undermine authority.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 162037)

Facts:

  • Election controversy in Marogong, Lanao del Sur
    • On February 3, 1988, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed Datu Jamil Dimaporo as Mayor-elect of Marogong.
    • Two defeated candidates, Datu Abdulmadid Panondiongan Maruhom and Monabai Panondiongan Balt, filed separate petitions before the COMELEC First Division seeking annulment of the proclamation.
  • Appointment of Officer-in-Charge and provincial directives
    • While the petitions were pending, the Secretary of Local Governments (May 19, 1988) designated Maclis Balt as OIC-Mayor of Marogong, and Governor Saidamen Pangarungan lifted financial suspensions on municipal accounts.
    • Maclis Balt assumed mayoral functions pending final resolution of the COMELEC proceedings.
  • COMELEC First Division decision and subsequent correspondence
    • On July 11, 1988, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the petitions, affirmed Dimaporo’s proclamation, and denied reconsideration en banc on October 28, 1988.
    • Dimaporo’s counsel requested provincial recognition (July 18, 1988); Vice-Governor Alauya forwarded the request to Provincial Fiscal Dumarpa for opinion.
    • On August 5, 1988, 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal Danganan, with Fiscal Dumarpa’s conformity, opined in writing that Balt remained OIC-Mayor because the First Division decision was not yet final and executory due to pending motions for reconsideration.
  • Motion for contempt before COMELEC en banc
    • On August 22, 1988, Dimaporo filed a motion to hold Alauya, Dumarpa, and Danganan in indirect contempt for “improper conduct” allegedly obstructing COMELEC proceedings and causing public confusion.
    • The COMELEC en banc, by Resolution dated October 28, 1988, found respondents guilty of contempt, fined each P500, and denied their motion for reconsideration on January 12, 1989.
    • Respondents then filed a special civil action of certiorari with the Supreme Court to annul the contempt ruling.

Issues:

  • Did the issuance and communication of the legal opinion by the provincial fiscals and Vice-Governor constitute contempt of the COMELEC en banc by unlawfully interfering with its exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies?
  • Was the COMELEC en banc’s contempt finding supported by factual and legal grounds, or was it an abuse of discretion?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.