Facts:
On July 6, 1992,
Harkin Que filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch V, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, a petition for
mandamus against the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongao, presided by respondent
Hon. Jose T. Pinon, docketed as
CV Case No. 18-5, to compel the Board to declare him the number eight (8) duly elected councilor, asserting that he ranked among the winning candidates. The events leading to the petition included a prior proceeding before the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) where
Akmad J. Sana, Harkin Que, Hadji Otong Ayub, and Samuel Bani had filed a petition, docketed as
COMELEC Case No. UND 92-245, seeking official proclamation as vice-mayor and councilors after the Municipal Board of Canvassers failed to proclaim them. The Board had previously proclaimed only the first five (5) councilor candidates. On July 22, 1992, other councilor candidates (
Idlana Mangona and
Erong Udjid) moved to dismiss the mandamus case, contending that the matter raised involved a
pre-proclamation controversy already within COMELEC’s cognizance. On September 22, 1992, respondent Judge issued an order directing the Municipal Board of Canvassers to convene within five (5) days and to proclaim Harkin S. Que as number eight (8) councilor, and simultaneously ordered the respondents to jointly and severally pay damages and attorney’s fees totaling
P145,000.00. On September 28, 1992, additional petitions were filed with COMELEC, docketed as
SPA 92-353, alleging failure of elections affecting the positions of vice-mayor and councilor slots six (6) to eight (8). The COMELEC First Division, in its
Resolution in UND 92-245 dated September 25, 1992, advised the parties to seek redress with the
COMELEC En Banc, and COMELEC set hearings for October 15, 1992. In the meantime, a contempt incident arose when the Board failed to proclaim Harkin S. Que despite respondent Judge’s September 22 order; respondent Judge denied the Board’s motion for reconsideration of the contempt order in an order dated October 27, 1992, declared the Board in contempt, and issued a warrant of arrest ordering the members committed to jail until they proclaimed Harkin S. Que and paid the
P145,000.00. Because of the arrests, the Board members were prevented from traveling to Manila to attend COMELEC en banc hearings in SPA 92-410 and SPA 92-353. On October 29, 1992, respondent Judge issued another order lifting the arrest of certain individuals after they submitted a duplicate original copy of the proclamation paper and after acknowledging receipt of the damages, with the order being framed on the basis that compliance with the September 22 order had been made. After these actions, COMELEC issued
COMELEC Resolution No. 2521, expressing the view that respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion: first, by denying reconsideration and ordering incarceration of the Board so that they would comply under duress; second, by taking cognizance of a pre-proclamation controversy which, under the Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code, lay within COMELEC’s exclusive domain; and third, by violating the election offense proscription against coercing election officials. In his comment, respondent Judge argued that the matter was not a pre-proclamation controversy because a proclamation had already been made on May 24, 1992, after which the Board allegedly had a ministerial duty to proclaim all winning candidates. The Court later held him administratively liable for
gross ignorance of the law and
arbitrariness, imposing a fine of
P35,000.00 with a stern warning.
Issues:
Whether respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for
gross ignorance of the law and arbitrariness for issuing orders in a mandamus case that interfered with matters characterized as a
pre-proclamation controversy within COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: