Title
Guevara vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-12596
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1958
COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to punish contempt for a critical article on ballot box contracts, as its functions were administrative, not judicial.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12596)

Facts:

  • Award and execution of contracts for ballot boxes
    • On May 4, 1957, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) awarded contracts for 34,000 ballot boxes as follows:
      • National Shipyards & Steel Corporation (NASSCO): 12,000 boxes at ₱17.64 each
      • Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ACME): 11,000 boxes at ₱14.00 each
      • Asiatic Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ASIATIC): 11,000 boxes at ₱17.00 each
    • On May 8, 1957, NASSCO and ASIATIC signed their contracts. On May 13, 1957, COMELEC cancelled ACME’s award for failure to sign and reallocated its 11,000 boxes equally between NASSCO and ASIATIC, contracts signed May 16, 1957.
  • Reconsideration petitions by ACME
    • First petition (May 14, 1957) – denied May 16, 1957
    • Second petition (May 16, 1957) – denied May 17, 1957
    • Third petition (May 20, 1957) – prompted formal investigation; hearings on May 24; ACME memorandum filed May 28; resolution denying third motion issued June 4, 1957
  • Contempt proceedings against petitioner
    • June 2, 1957: Petitioner José L. Guevara published an article entitled “Ballot Boxes Contract Hit” in the Sunday Times, alleging interference, fraud, and undermining of COMELEC’s functions
    • COMELEC ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for publishing an article allegedly tending to influence a pending COMELEC adjudication and degrade its members
    • Petitioner filed a motion to quash on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, administrative vs. judicial function, mootness of controversy, and fair-report privilege
    • COMELEC denied the motion to quash but allowed fifteen days to elevate the jurisdictional issue to the Supreme Court; petitioner filed the present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional question under Republic Act No. 180, Section 5
    • Whether COMELEC may punish contempts under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court by virtue of R.A. 180, §5
    • Whether such power extends to publications alleged to influence COMELEC’s proceedings
  • Nature of COMELEC’s function in awarding ballot‐box contracts
    • Whether the purchase of ballot boxes is a ministerial (administrative) duty or a quasi‐judicial function
    • Whether contempt power may be exercised in furtherance of purely administrative acts
  • Constitutionality and scope of COMELEC’s contempt jurisdiction
    • Whether Section 5 of R.A. 180 unconstitutionally confers judicial contempt power on an administrative body
    • Whether COMELEC properly exercised or exceeded its authority in the instant case

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.