Case Digest (G.R. No. 150477)
Facts:
Gayo v. Verceles, G.R. No. 150477, February 28, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Lazaro C. Gayo challenged the proclamation of respondent Violeta G. Verceles as Mayor of Tubao, La Union, in the May 14, 2001 elections by filing a petition for quo warranto with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Agoo, La Union, Branch 32.The factual background is that Verceles migrated to the United States in 1977; her husband became a U.S. citizen while she retained Filipino citizenship. She returned to the Philippines permanently in 1993, was appointed treasurer of a local foundation in 1994, registered to vote in Precinct No. 16, Tubao in 1995, and filed income tax returns in 1996–1997. She periodically visited the U.S. to see her children. On January 28, 1998 she surrendered her Alien Registration Receipt Card (green card) to the U.S. consular authorities, an act the records date as effective November 5, 1997 for purposes of her 1998 candidacy. She ran for and was elected Mayor in May 1998.
In the May 2001 elections petitioner ran again and was proclaimed the winner on May 16, 2001. On May 26, 2001 petitioner filed the quo warranto in RTC to declare Verceles disqualified (for failure to meet residency requirements), to annul her proclamation, and to have petitioner proclaimed mayor. Verceles answered, asserting she had waived her U.S. permanent-resident status prior to her 1998 candidacy and counterclaimed for damages.
On October 12, 2001 the RTC dismissed the quo warranto, ruling Verceles was qualified: although registration as voter and filing tax returns do not, by themselves, constitute abandonment of U.S. permanent-resident status, the RTC found she had waived that status before filing her 1998 certificate of candidacy and therefore met residency requirements; the RTC also held Section 68(e) of the Omnibus Election Code remained operative and was not repealed by Section 40(f) of the Local Government Code (LGC).
Petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the proper avenue ordinarily was an appeal to ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition properly filed under Rule 45, or should the remedy have been a writ of error to the Court of Appeals?
- Did Verceles satisfy the one-year residency requirement of Section 39 of the Local Government Code for the May 2001 elections?
- Did the Local Government Code of 1991 (Section 40(f)) repeal or render ineffective Section 68(e) of the Omnibus Election Code so that waiver of foreign permanent-resident status could no longer cure disqualification?
- If Verceles were disqualified, could petitioner ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)