Title
Layug vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 192984
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2012
Layug sought to disqualify Buhay Party-List from the elections, claiming it was not a legitimate party. The Court ruled there was no due process violation as Layug provided an incorrect address, causing him to miss filings.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192984)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Filing of Petition to Disqualify
    • On March 31, 2010, Rolando D. Layug, in his capacity as a taxpayer and concerned citizen, filed a Petition to Disqualify Buhay Hayaan Yumabong Party-List (Buhay Party-List) and Mariano Velarde (Brother Mike) as its nominee from participating in the May 10, 2010 Party-List Elections.
    • Layug argued Buhay Party-List was an extension of El Shaddai, a religious sect disqualifying it under Section 5, Paragraph 2, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 6, Paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act).
    • He further contended Brother Mike did not qualify as belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sector as required for party-list nominees under COMELEC Resolution No. 8807.
  • Response by Respondents
    • Buhay Party-List and Brother Mike asserted the party is a political organization composed of various sectors and that Brother Mike belongs to the marginalized elderly group.
    • They argued nominees from a political party such as Buhay Party-List need not come from marginalized sectors.
  • Issues Concerning Service of Documents
    • Layug did not receive the Answer until the April 20, 2010 hearing because the respondents’ counsel claimed Layug’s given address (#70 Dr. Pilapil St., Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City) was nonexistent.
    • Layug’s counsel insisted they could be served at the Nueva Vizcaya address but did not update their official address at COMELEC.
  • COMELEC Proceedings and Finality of Resolution
    • On June 15, 2010, COMELEC Second Division denied the petition lacking substantial evidence and sent its resolution by registered mail to Layug’s Pasig address.
    • Mail was returned unserved with the postmaster’s notation of insufficient address, leading COMELEC to declare Layug a phantom petitioner for providing fictitious address.
    • COMELEC deemed Layug received a copy of the June 15 resolution on June 23, 2010, and with no motion for reconsideration filed on time, the resolution became final and executory as of July 28, 2010.
  • Proclamation of Buhay Party-List
    • Following the finality of the denial, COMELEC En Banc promulgated NBC Resolution No. 10-034 on July 30, 2010, proclaiming Buhay Party-List as a winner with two seats in the House of Representatives.
    • Brother Mike, as the fifth nominee, was not proclaimed a representative.
  • Motion for Reconsideration and Denial
    • On July 28, 2010, Layug filed a motion for reconsideration before COMELEC En Banc, alleging denial of due process because he was not served the June 15 resolution.
    • The motion was denied by COMELEC Second Division on August 4, 2010 for being filed out of time and lacking proper notice of hearing.
  • Filing of Petition for Certiorari
    • Aggrieved, Layug filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court seeking:
      • To enjoin the implementation of COMELEC’s June 15, 2010 resolution.
      • To nullify the July 30, 2010 proclamation.
      • To compel COMELEC En Banc to decide on his motion for reconsideration.
  • Respondents’ Defense and Opposition
    • Respondents questioned the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, asserting the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has exclusive jurisdiction over qualifications of party-list members.
    • They argued Layug was properly served as he gave a fictitious address and refused to correct it despite notice.

Issues:

  • Whether the COMELEC Second Division violated procedural due process by failing to properly serve the petitioner and issue a notice of promulgation.
  • Whether the COMELEC En Banc unlawfully neglected the duty to hear and decide petitioner’s timely filed motion for reconsideration.
  • Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this petition or it lies exclusively with the HRET or COMELEC.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.