Case Digest (G.R. No. 185369)
Facts:
J. Tobias M. Javier and Vincent H. Piccio III v. Rhodora J. Cadiao, et al., G.R. No. 185369, August 03, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the RTC of San Jose, Antique, Branch 12 Order of August 7, 2008 (Judge Rudy P. Castrojas), which upheld the validity of Resolution No. 42-2008 (the "Combong Resolution") of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Antique reorganizing its standing committees.The petitioners were members of the Lakas-CMD majority bloc in the SP, specifically J. Tobias M. Javier and Vincent H. Piccio III; respondents included Vice Governor Rhodora J. Cadiao (the presiding officer), Alfonso V. Combong, Jr., and other SP members who supported the Combong Resolution. At the SP session of February 7, 2008 all 14 persons constituting the SP (ten regular members, three ex‑officio members, plus the Vice Governor as presiding officer) were present; the resolution was approved by seven votes in favor and six against.
The Lakas-CMD bloc filed a Complaint for Injunction with Urgent Prayer for TRO/Preliminary Injunction in the RTC, arguing that the Combong Resolution was an "urgent matter" under Section 62, Rule XVI of the SP Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP) and therefore required two‑thirds (or, at least, a majority of those present) — i.e., eight or nine votes given 14 present, including the Vice Governor. The RTC applied Section 67, Rule XVIII (Manner of Voting) of the SP IRP, held that only those actually voting are counted (abstentions excluded), and ruled the Vice Governor should not be counted in determining the number constituting a majority because the presiding officer votes only to break a tie. The RTC dismissed the complaint on August 7, 2008 and denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on November 17, 2008.
The petitioners sought review in this Court by Rule 45, raising inter alia whether the correct majority was eight (or nine) rather than seven, whether the Vice Governor must be included in the base number for...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot and academic such that it should be dismissed on procedural grounds?
- Should the Vice Governor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, be counted in determining the number that constitutes a majority (i.e., must the Vice Governor be included in the base when computing required votes)?
- Does Section 62, Rule XVI (Urgent Matters) of the SP IRP — which purportedly requires an affirmative vote of two‑thirds of the members present for urgent matters — override or impose a more stringent voting requirement than the Local Government Code and its IRR?
- Are executive pronouncements or DILG legal opinions controlling on the question whether the Vice Governor is to be counted in computing the required majority?
- Did the passage of the Combong Resolution violate Sections 5 and 6(a), Rule III (Majori...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)