Case Digest (G.R. No. 87743)
Facts:
Robert F. Ong v. Maria Teresita Herrera-Martinez, G.R. No. 87743, August 21, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Robert F. Ong challenged the appointment and assumption of duties by respondent Maria Teresita Herrera‑Martinez as Councilor representing the Third District of Manila, a vacancy caused by the death of Councilor Saturnino C. Herrera. Saturnino Herrera, a member of the Liberal Party, was elected in the local elections of January 18, 1988 and died on October 14, 1988.
After the vacancy arose, petitioner—a defeated Liberal Party candidate in the Third District—was appointed by the Secretary of Local Government on February 9, 1989 to fill the vacancy; he took an oath the same date and the Secretary informed Manila's Mayor and Vice‑Mayor of the appointment. Petitioner’s claimed nomination rested on an indorsement by the Treasurer of the district Liberal Party chapter and an alleged resolution of ward leaders. The City Council refused to recognize petitioner: at its March 9, 1989 session a motion was made to exclude petitioner and other appointees, and on March 14, 1989 sixteen councilors voted to exclude them, with the rest abstaining.
Respondent Martinez followed a different nomination route: on November 4, 1988 nine incumbent Liberal Party councilors endorsed her; on March 1, 1989 the Manila Chapter Chairman nominated her to President Corazon Aquino through the Secretary of Local Government; copies were furnished to Senate President Jovito Salonga; Congressman Leonardo Fuguso nominated her to National President Salonga, who in turn nominated her to Secretary Luis Santos pursuant to Section 50 of the Local Government Code. Secretary Santos issued an appointment to Martinez on March 17, 1989; on March 21, 1989 the City Council (24–0) recognized her and ordered her inclusion in the payroll. She assumed and performed councilor duties until a restraining order of the Court, received April 20, 1989, halted her activities.
Petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of Martinez’s appointment and a declaration that he is the rightful councilor, invoking quo warranto, mandamus and prohibition remedies. The parties disputed (a) compliance with the Liberal Party’s internal rules for nominations, (b) the applicability of the election‑period ban in Sec. 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code, and (c) the validity...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner have the legal personality or right to institute quo warranto, mandamus and prohibition to claim the councilor position?
- Did respondent Martinez’s appointment on March 17, 1989 violate the election ban under Section 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code?
- Was respondent Martinez validly appointed to fill the permanent vacancy under Section 50 of the Local Government Code and the Liberal Party’s rules?
- Was petitioner’s appointment of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)