G.R. No. 127066 - Malonzo vs. Commission on Elections

On May 8, 1995, Reynaldo O. Malonzo was duly elected as Mayor of Caloocan City, defeating former Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr.
Less than a year into his term, on July 7, 1996, 1,057 Punong Barangays, Sangguniang Barangay members, and Sangguniang Kabataan chairmen—constituting a majority of the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) of Caloocan City—convened.
At this meeting, the members deliberated and passed PRA Resolution No. 01-96, signaling loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo and initiating recall proceedings against him.

The PRA Resolution No. 01-96, along with pertinent documents, was filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) as a call to commence recall proceedings.
In response, Mayor Malonzo filed a Petition with COMELEC, asserting that the recall process was deficient both in form and substance, arguing that it had been illegally initiated.
COMELEC, after evaluating the petition, dismissed it and declared the recall proceedings as in order, setting the recall election date for December 14, 1996, in compliance with Section 71 of R.A. 7160.

On November 28, 1996, prior to the scheduled recall election, Mayor Malonzo elevated a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and an Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Supreme Court.
The petition chiefly attacked:

The validity of the recall election proceedings.
The propriety and legality of the service of notices to the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly.
The conduct of the session that produced PRA Resolution No. 01-96.

Due to the proximity of the scheduled election date, the Court on November 29, 1996, issued an order restraining COMELEC from proceeding with the recall election pending further comments from the parties involved.

COMELEC’s Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD) was tasked to verify the propriety of notice service to the PRA members as requested by Malonzo.
Findings of the ERSD Report included:

Verification of the membership composition and attendance at the PRA session.
The identification of 1,927 notices sent via three modes: personal delivery, registered mail, and courier service.
Specific instances where certain barangay officials either did not receive or had issues with their notice service:

Cases involving Jose de Chavez, Enrico Marasigan, Pablo Musngi, Rolando Ang, Pilar Pilares, and Teresita Calayo were examined.
The report also noted additional discrepancies regarding Lino Ramos and Teodulfo Abenoja.

Respondents furnished explanations for each anomaly, showing that replacements had been properly effected or that the proper protocol on serving notice had been observed.

Detailed documentary evidence, including delivery receipts and return cards, substantiated that the requirements for effective and complete service under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court had been fully met.

Petitioner contended that the Liga ng mga Barangay (Caloocan Chapter) improperly assumed the role of convening the PRA, arguing that the Liga was not an organization solely of barangay captains and kagawads as required by law.
However, the Court clarified that:

The members representing barangays in the Liga were also the same individuals forming part of the PRA.
The recall proceedings were thus valid as they were conducted by the designated members acting in their capacity as members of the PRA.

Petitioner further alleged that the recall assembly session was marred by irregularities, violence, graft, and corruption.
These serious accusations, however, were not supported by substantial evidence:

The record and the COMELEC’s own findings did not corroborate these claims.
The procedural simplicity required by law for initiating recall was observed, with no indication of impropriety affecting the outcome.

Whether the initiation of recall proceedings against Mayor Malonzo was lawful.
Whether the Convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly (by the members representing barangays in the Liga ng mga Barangay) conformed to the requirements under Sections 69 and 70 of R.A. 7160.

Whether the notices to the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly were validly served.
Whether the observed discrepancies in the notice service (such as non-delivery, refusals, or errors in addressing) materially affected the legality of the recall proceedings.

Whether COMELEC’s resolution and determination regarding the validity of the recall process were tainted by grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the findings of the ERSD and the administrative body should be disturbed by the petitioner’s allegations of irregularity and misconduct.