Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3474)
Facts:
The Nacionalista Party, Marcelo Adduru, Democao Alonto, Pedro C. Hernaez, Trinidad F. Legarda, Alejo Mabanag, Claro M. Recto, Jose O. Vera and Jose Veloso v. Vicente de Vera, G.R. No. L-3474, December 07, 1949, the Supreme Court, Moran, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Nacionalista Party and its official senatorial candidates) filed a special civil action for prohibition against Vicente de Vera, Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), seeking to enjoin him from sitting or participating in COMELEC deliberations in connection with the November 8, 1949 national elections. They advanced two grounds: (1) that De Vera was disqualified under Rule 126, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court because his son, Teodoro de Vera, was a Liberal Party senatorial candidate (an asserted conflict of interest); and (2) that De Vera’s appointment as Chairman was void ab initio because it amounted to an unconstitutional reappointment in violation of Article X, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
The petition relied on Rule 126, Secs. 1–2 (disqualification of judges and the procedure for objections) and sought relief by prohibition. Respondent answered that (a) he had already inhibited himself in matters directly affecting his son, and (b) even if there were questions about the validity of his appointment, he at least held under color of right as a de facto officer. The factual backdrop: in July 1945 three Commissioners were appointed—Jose Lopez Vito (Chairman, nine years), Francisco Enage (six years), and Vicente de Vera (three years). After Chairman Vito’s death in 1947, De Vera was promoted to Chair to serve the unexpired portion of Vito’s term.
The Court first considered whether the Rules of Court apply to COMELEC and whether prohibition was the correct remedy to challenge appointment. The Supreme Court ruled on these questions and interpreted Article X, Sec. 1 regarding the prohibition against reappointment and the staggered initial terms. Several justices filed separate opinions: Justice Ozaeta concurred (with a distinct view that De Vera’s original three-year term expired and that De Vera was a de facto officer thereafter); Justice Paras dissented (joined by Justice Tuason) arguing Rule 126 should apply and that De Vera’s te...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the Rules of Court (specifically Rule 126, Secs. 1–2) applicable to the Commission on Elections so as to permit disqualification of a Commissioner under that rule?
- Is a petition for prohibition the proper remedy to challenge the validity of Vicente de Vera’s appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Elections, or is quo warranto the proper remedy?
- Did Vicente de Vera’s appointment as Chairman violate Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution (the prohibition against reappointment and the required staggered initial te...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)