G.R. No. 84502 - Christian Children's Fund vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84502)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Decision date: 3 September 1991 (1987 Constitution controls applicability).
Constitutional provisions and statutes relied upon in the proceedings: 1987 Constitution Article X, Section 12 and Section 4; B.P. Blg. 337 (Title II, Chapter I, Sec. 42) on local elective official qualifications; Republic Act No. 179, Sec. 89 (City of Ormoc charter); Omnibus Election Code Secs. 6, 74, 78, 262; R.A. No. 6646 Sec. 6; Family Code Arts. 68–69; Civil Code provisions on domicile; applicable jurisprudence cited in the decision.

Procedural History — multiple elevations and consolidations

The Leyte governorship dispute was litigated repeatedly and consolidated in prior petitions (G.R. Nos. 87721–30; G.R. No. 88004). COMELEC initially dismissed the pre‑proclamation and disqualification petitions; this Court remanded the disqualification matter for direct COMELEC determination under Section 78 of the Election Code. Subsequent COMELEC proceedings, proclamations, TROs, and appeals culminated in the present consolidated petitions to the Court challenging COMELEC rulings disqualifying Larrazabal and refusing to proclaim Abella while Leopoldo Petilla assumed office.

Facts of Candidacy and Substitution

Emeterio V. Larrazabal (original Lakas ng Bansa–PDP–Laban candidate) was disqualified by COMELEC for lack of residence on 18 January 1988. On 31 January 1988, Adelina Larrazabal filed a certificate of candidacy as substitution. On 1 February 1988, Silvestre de la Cruz filed a petition alleging false statements in her certificate of candidacy about residence. Larrazabal received the highest number of votes and was proclaimed governor; Abella received the second highest number of votes.

Early injunctive relief and remand to COMELEC

This Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 4 February 1988 enjoining the provincial board of canvassers from proclaiming Larrazabal, then remanded the disqualification petition to COMELEC after it became fully constituted, instructing COMELEC to act under Section 78 of the Election Code to resolve the residence qualification.

Concurrent appeals, interventions, and criminal referral

Abella elevated objections to the provincial canvass (multiple SPC appeals), intervened in the disqualification case, and filed a criminal complaint alleging falsification under Section 74/Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC consolidated cases and assigned them to its Second Division; various COMELEC rulings followed, including dismissal of some pre-proclamation challenges and, ultimately, hearings on SPC No. 88‑546.

Initial Court and COMELEC rulings (February–April 1989)

On 3 February 1989, this Court’s division upheld most challenged provincial board rulings and ordered proclamation after canvass completion. The disqualification case was (initially) dismissed by a 2–1 decision and referred to the Law Department for possible criminal investigation; this Court reversed that referral in G.R. No. 88004 and directed COMELEC to decide SPC No. 88‑546 under Section 78 to resolve residence qualification.

COMELEC action after remand; proclamation and hearings

COMELEC lifted the TRO against proclamation at Larrazabal’s motion, allowing her proclamation and assumption as governor while COMELEC continued hearings on SPC No. 88‑546. The Second Division later issued a decision (14 February 1991) disqualifying Larrazabal for lack of residence and registration; the en banc denied her motion for reconsideration on 18 July 1991 and also disallowed Abella’s proclamation.

Issues presented to the Court

Whether COMELEC properly adjudicated Larrazabal’s residence and voter registration qualifications under Section 78 of the Election Code as directed by this Court.
Whether Larrazabal’s claimed animus revertendi and attested transfers legitimately established her domicile and voter registration in Kananga, Leyte.
Whether a registered voter of a component city that is independent of the province (Ormoc City) may be qualified to be elected provincial governor of the geographically attached province.
Whether Abella, the second highest vote-getter, may be proclaimed governor when the highest-placed candidate is declared disqualified after the election.
Whether the participation in the COMELEC decision of a commissioner whose term had allegedly expired (Commissioner Flores) voided the agency action.

COMELEC factual findings on residence and registration

COMELEC found, on the basis of testimonial and documentary evidence, that Larrazabal established residence in Ormoc City from 1975 onward, continued to be registered there, and that her purported cancellation of Ormoc registration and transfer of registration to Kananga (late November 1987) was not supported by reliable documentary records. COMELEC emphasized irregularities in registration documents, discrepancies in serial numbers, delayed or missing affidavits, and an implausible sequence of events surrounding alleged cancellation and re-registration.

Legal standard applied on domicile and animus revertendi

COMELEC and the Court applied the legal concept that domicile for civil and political purposes is the place of habitual residence and that, for spouses, the Family Code presumes a common family domicile (Arts. 68–69). The Court considered animus revertendi (intention to return) as a relevant but fact-dependent factor; it concluded that Larrazabal produced no evidence demonstrating temporary absence with a continuing intention to retain Kananga as domicile. Her cohabitation and registration with her husband in Ormoc and related acts evidenced a settled residence in Ormoc, negating the claimed animus revertendi to Kananga.

Voter registration irregularities and evidentiary weight

COMELEC detailed numerous anomalies: misplaced or late submission of cancellation requests, inconsistent voter list entries, post‑election appearance of voter affidavits, serial number inconsistencies corresponding to different precincts, and absence of contemporaneous entries corroborating the alleged cancellations. The Commission treated these facts as undermining Larrazabal’s claim of valid transfer and registration in Kananga and supported the finding that she remained registered in Ormoc City.

Effect of Ormoc City’s charter and constitutional provision on eligibility

The Court and COMELEC analyzed Article X, Section 12 of the Constitution and Section 89 of R.A. No. 179 (Ormoc City charter). R.A. 179 expressly provided that qualified voters of Ormoc City shall not be qualified and entitled to vote in the election of the provincial governor and members of the Provincial Board of Leyte. The Court held that this prohibition, read with the constitutional provision, renders Ormoc’s registered voters independent of the province and that such independence includes both the right to vote and to be voted for provincial elective offices. The Court rejected Larrazabal’s argument that the phrase should be narrowly read to prohibit only voting while allowing qualification for provincial office.

Jurisprudential rule on replacing a disqualified highest vote-getter

The Court reiterated controlling jurisprudence (citing Frivaldo, Labo, Santos, Geronimo, and Topacio precedents) that when a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is declared disqualified for lacking eligibility at the time of election, the candidate with the second highest votes does not automatically assume office. The rationale is that votes cast in the honest belief that the leading candidate was eligible should not be treated as stray or void absent clear statute to the contrary; democratic principle favors seating those actually chosen by the electorate. Therefore, Abella could not be declared governor simply because Larrazabal was later disqualified.

Commissioner Flores’ term and the de facto doctrine

Larrazabal argued that Co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 84502)

Procedural posture and consolidation

These are consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 100710 and 100739) arising from prior consolidated cases (G.R. Nos. 87721-30 and G.R. No. 88004) concerning the February 1, 1988 Leyte gubernatorial election.
Earlier proceedings resulted in this Court remanding the disqualification petition (SPC No. 88-546) to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to determine the residence qualification of Adelina Larrazabal pursuant to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (as directed in G.R. No. 88004).
While COMELEC hearings proceeded, the COMELEC lifted a prior temporary restraining order and allowed Larrazabal’s proclamation and assumption to the governorship; later COMELEC second division (Feb. 14, 1991) disqualified Larrazabal; COMELEC en banc (July 18, 1991) denied reconsideration and affirmed disqualification while disallowing Benjamin Abella’s proclamation.
Multiple temporary restraining orders were issued by this Court during the long procedural history (notably Feb. 4, 1988; Apr. 18, 1989; Aug. 1, 1991), with orders to CEASE and DESIST at various points pending resolution.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, disposed of the present consolidated petitions by judgment dated September 3, 1991: the petitions were dismissed; the COMELEC second division decision of Feb. 14, 1991 and the COMELEC en banc resolution of July 18, 1991 were affirmed; the August 1, 1991 TRO was lifted; costs against petitioners were assessed.

Core legal issue presented

Who is the rightful Governor of Leyte following the 1 February 1988 local elections: (1) Adelina Larrazabal (received the highest number of votes and was proclaimed but later disqualified by COMELEC for lack of residence and registration), (2) Benjamin Abella (received the second highest number of votes and sought proclamation after Larrazabal’s disqualification), or (3) Leopoldo E. Petilla (then Vice-Governor who assumed the governorship under COMELEC resolution)?
Subsidiary legal questions presented include:
- Whether COMELEC properly exercised Section 78 jurisdiction to determine residence and registration qualifications after the election;
- The proper test for legal residence/domicile and the role of animus revertendi;
- Whether being a registered voter of Ormoc City (a component city with a charteral prohibition under Sec. 89, R.A. No. 179) prevents one from being elected as provincial governor of Leyte;
- Whether votes cast for Larrazabal, who was later declared disqualified, should be disregarded so that the second-placer (Abella) becomes governor;
- Whether the participation in the COMELEC decision by Commissioner Flores (allegedly beyond his term) invalidates the COMELEC decision.

Factual background (as found in the record)

Benjamin P. Abella was the Liberal Party candidate for governor of Leyte in the February 1, 1988 election; Adelina (“Inday”) Larrazabal substituted her husband Emeterio V. Larrazabal’s candidacy at the eve of the election after he had been disqualified for lack of residence.
Silvestre de la Cruz filed a petition alleging false statements in Adelina Larrazabal’s certificate of candidacy regarding residence (claiming she was a resident and registered voter of Ormoc City, not Kananga, Leyte).
The COMELEC initially could not act (not yet fully constituted); this Court issued a TRO (Feb. 4, 1988) enjoining proclamation if Larrazabal had the winning margin; case was remanded to COMELEC once constituted (Mar. 1, 1988).
Abella raised objections during canvass and filed multiple appeals (SPC Nos. 88-627 to 88-627-I) and intervened in SPC No. 88-546; a criminal charge for falsification/misrepresentation was lodged with COMELEC’s Law Department.
COMELEC’s Second Division on Feb. 3, 1989 largely upheld provincial board canvass rulings and ordered proclamation; on the same date the disqualification case was dismissed by 2-1 decision and referred to the Law Department for investigation — this dismissal was reversed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 88004, with COMELEC ordered to hear SPC No. 88-546 under Section 78.
Subsequent COMELEC proceedings: hearings under SPC No. 88-546; Second Division (Feb. 14, 1991) disqualified Larrazabal for lack of residence and registration; COMELEC en banc affirmed (July 18, 1991) and disallowed Abella’s proclamation; Larrazabal sought relief before the Supreme Court (TRO issued Aug. 1, 1991).

COMELEC findings and evidence regarding residence and registration

COMELEC found that Larrazabal had established residence in Ormoc City from 1975 onwards and was not a resident or registered voter of Kananga, Leyte, despite her attestations and late registration attempts.
Evidence relied on by COMELEC included:
- A lease-with-option-to-buy contract (Mahawan, Kananga) describing the spouses as “residents of Ormoc City” and containing a residence certificate presented by Emeterio Larrazabal issued in Ormoc City;
- Testimony that the Larrazabals had properties in Kananga and visited/stayed there, but that the spouses’ legal residence, per signed documents and other testimony, was Ormoc City;
- Documentary anomalies and irregularities in the voter registration records: alleged late or misplaced cancellation applications, inconsistent or missing voter affidavits, discrepancies in serial numbers of voter affidavits that traced to a different precinct (Precinct No. 6) yet were used in Precinct No. 17, and marked differences between contemporaneous voters’ lists and later versions that included the Larrazabals’ names;
- Certifications from registrars and the National Central Files reflecting conflicting or belated entries concerning the Larrazabals’ registrations.
COMELEC concluded the version offered by Larrazabal regarding cancellation and transfer of registration was “unworthy of belief” and marked by “bizarre circumstances” inconsistent with ordinary electoral procedures; COMELEC found the weight of evidence favored that the Larrazabals remained registered in Precinct No. 15, Ormoc City.

Legal standards and statutory provisions applied

Section 78, Omnibus Election Code: Provides mechanism for a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that a material representation required under Section 74 is false; such petition to be decided after notice and hearing.
Section 6, R.A. No. 6646: Provides that if a candidate is not declared by final judgment to be disqualified before an election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing and may suspend proclamation during pendency if evidence is strong; any candidate finally declared disqualified shall not be voted for and votes cast for him shall not be counted.
Title II, Chapter I, Sec. 42, B.P. Blg. 337 (Qualification): An elective local official must be a qualified voter registered in the barangay, municipality, city or province where he proposes to be elected and a resident therein for at least one year at time of filing of certificate of candidacy.
Article X, Section 12, 1