G.R. No. 236573 - Chua vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236573)

Factual Background

Herbert O. Chua and Sophia Patricia K. Gil were opposing candidates for the office of Punong Barangay of Addition Hills, San Juan City in the October 28, 2013 Barangay Elections. After canvassing, Chua was proclaimed the winner, the records reflecting vote totals variously as 465 to 460 and ultimately as a plurality of 468 votes in the MeTC decision. On May 7, 2013, Gil filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan City, docketed as EAC (BRGY) No. 165-2014, alleging fraudulent and illegal voting and counting in all fifteen precincts of the barangay. Gil specifically alleged the presence of nonresident voters, erroneous counting in favor of Chua by the Chairmen of the Boards of Election Tellers, and failure to credit ballots where the Punong Barangay space was left blank while her name was mistakenly written on the Kagawad line.

MeTC Decision

On May 20, 2014, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a Decision dismissing Gil’s election protest and affirming the proclamation of Herbert O. Chua as duly elected Punong Barangay. The MeTC disposed of the case by dismissing the protest and the parties’ mutual claims for damages and attorneys’ fees and declared Chua to have obtained a plurality of 468 votes over Gil.

Comelec First Division Resolution

Sophia Patricia K. Gil appealed the MeTC Decision to the Commission on Elections. The appeal was assigned to the First Division, which, by Resolution dated April 7, 2017, granted Gil’s appeal, reversed and set aside the MeTC Decision, and declared Gil to be the duly-elected Punong Barangay of Addition Hills in the October 28, 2013 Barangay Elections.

Comelec En Banc Proceedings and Actions

Dissatisfied, Herbert O. Chua filed a verified motion for reconsideration with the Comelec En Banc. On November 6, 2017, the Comelec En Banc denied the motion and affirmed the April 7, 2017 Resolution of the Comelec First Division. On November 10, 2017, Chua filed a Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution contending that Gil had abandoned her election protest when she filed a certificate of candidacy for councilor on October 18, 2015. The Comelec En Banc, by Order dated January 19, 2018, denied that pleading on the ground that it constituted a prohibited motion for reconsideration under Section 1(d), Rule 13, Comelec Rules of Procedure. Pursuant to Section 13, paragraph (a), Rule 18, Comelec Rules of Procedure, an Electoral Contests Adjudication Department certificate of finality issued and the Comelec En Banc Resolution was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments on January 23, 2018.

Petition to the Supreme Court

On January 31, 2018, Herbert O. Chua filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court, with an urgent application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, challenging the Comelec En Banc Resolution. Counsel for private respondent entered appearances and filed comments, and the Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment.

Issues Presented

The petition principally alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Comelec in failing to rule on the asserted mootness or abandonment raised by Chua and sought to prevent entry of judgment or issuance of a writ of execution in favor of Gil. Raised implicitly were procedural questions whether Chua’s post-resolution pleadings tolled the reglementary period for filing a certiorari petition and whether the petition, if timely, still presented a justiciable controversy.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Timeliness

The Court held that the petition was filed out of time. It applied Section 3, Rule 64, Rules of Court, which requires a petition for certiorari to be filed within thirty days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution sought to be reviewed, and recognized that the Comelec Rules render en banc decisions final and executory after thirty days under Section 13(a), Rule 18, Comelec Rules of Procedure. The Court found that Chua received notice of the Comelec First Division Resolution on April 11, 2017 and filed a motion for reconsideration on April 17, 2017; after the Comelec En Banc denied reconsideration on November 6, 2017 and Chua received notice of the denial on November 9, 2017, he had twenty-four days remaining to file a certiorari petition but instead filed a Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution. The Court treated that pleading as a prohibited motion for reconsideration under Section 1(d), Rule 13, Comelec Rules of Procedure, and relied on precedents including Ferdinand Thomas M. Soller v. Commission on Elections, Landbank of the Philippines v. Ascot Holdings and Equities, Inc., and Angelia v. Commission on Elections to conclude that a prohibited pleading produces no legal effect and does not toll the running of the period to appeal. Consequently, the thirty-day period expired on December 3, 2017, and the petition filed on January 31, 2018 was untimely.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Mootness

The Court further held that even if the petition had been timely, it was moot and academic. The Court observed that the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections were held on May 14, 2018, and that any adjudication of who won the 2013 Barangay contest would no longer yield a practical, enforceable relief. The Court relied on its precedent in Baldo, Jr. v. Comelec, et al. to explain that where the term of the office has passed or subsequent elections have rendered the disputed office unavailable for relief, judicial determination becomes an empty victory. The Co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 236573)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Barangay Chairman Herbert O. Chua filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging Comelec resolutions.
Commission on Elections acted through its First Division and En Banc in the administrative appeal from the MeTC decision.
Hon. Marianito C. Santos appeared as respondent in his capacity as presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 57, San Juan City.
Sophia Patricia K. Gil was the private respondent and successful appellant before the Comelec.
The petition sought to annul the Comelec Resolutions dated April 7, 2017 and November 6, 2017 that declared Gil the duly-elected Punong Barangay in the 2013 Barangay Elections.

Key Facts

Chua and Gil were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Addition Hills in the October 28, 2013 Barangay Elections.
After canvass, Chua was proclaimed winner with four hundred sixty-five votes against Gil's four hundred sixty.
Gil filed an election protest on May 7, 2013 before the MeTC alleging nonresident voters, erroneous counting by Board of Election Tellers chairmen, and mishandling of ballots leaving the Punong Barangay slot blank.
The MeTC dismissed Gil's protest in a decision dated May 20, 2014 and affirmed Chua's proclamation.
Gil appealed to the Comelec First Division, which reversed the MeTC on April 7, 2017 and declared Gil the duly-elected Punong Barangay.
Chua filed a motion for reconsideration to the Comelec En Banc which was denied by resolution dated November 6, 2017.
Chua filed a Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution asserting that Gil had abandoned her protest when she filed a certificate of candidacy for city councilor on October 18, 2015.

MeTC Decision

The MeTC rendered a Decision on May 20, 2014 dismissing Gil's election protest and affirming Chua's proclamation as Punong Barangay.
The MeTC's dispositive expressly declared Chua duly elected for having obtained a plurality of votes.
The MeTC decision formed the basis for Gil's administrative appeal to the Comelec.

COMELEC Proceedings

The COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution on April 7, 2017 reversing the MeTC and declaring Sophia Patricia K. Gil duly-elected Punong Barangay.
Chua filed a verified motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc, which denied the motion by Resolution dated November 6, 2017.
The Electoral Contests Adjudication Department of the Comelec issued a Certificate of Finality and recorded the November 6, 2017 Resolution in the Book of Entries of Judgments on January 23, 2018.
The Comelec En Banc treated Chua's Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution as a prohibited pleading under Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure and denied it by Order dated January 19, 2018.

Issues Presented

Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition was timely filed under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial intervention.
Whether the controversy remained justiciable or had become moot and academic following subsequent baranga