G.R. No. 150605 - Codilla, Sr. vs. De Venecia

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150605)

Petitioner

Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr. contested the post‑election acts that prevented him from assuming office despite receiving the highest number of votes and the subsequent COMELEC en banc resolution declaring him the duly elected Representative.

Respondents

Ma. Victoria L. Locsin was the incumbent who was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers after a COMELEC Second Division resolution disqualified Codilla and treated his votes as stray. Speaker De Venecia and Secretary‑General Nazareno were the House officers charged with implementing COMELEC’s final decision by administering the oath and entering the petitioner in the Roll of Members.

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

May 8, 2001: Petition for disqualification against Codilla filed with COMELEC main office (SPA No. 01‑208).
May 10–11, 2001: COMELEC Second Division remanded hearing to Regional Election Director (RED); petitioner later informed by telegram.
May 14, 2001: National and local elections; initial returns showed Codilla as the winner.
May 16–18, 2001: Locsin filed motions to suspend Codilla’s proclamation; COMELEC Second Division issued Ex‑Parte Order suspending the proclamation.
May 24–June 4, 2001: Petitioner filed Answer, Motion to Lift suspension, memoranda and additional evidence; limited proceedings were held.
June 14–15, 2001: COMELEC Second Division promulgated Resolution disqualifying Codilla and ordering immediate proclamation of the next highest vote‑getter; Provincial Board proclaimed Locsin on June 15.
June 20, 2001: Codilla filed motion for reconsideration with COMELEC en banc and petition for declaration of nullity of Locsin’s proclamation (SPC No. 01‑324).
August 29, 2001: COMELEC Chairman Benipayo and three Commissioners formed the en banc majority reversing the Second Division, declaring Locsin’s proclamation null and ordering the Provincial Board to reconvene and proclaim Codilla.
September 12, 2001: Provincial Board proclaimed Codilla; he took oath before the regional trial court judge. Subsequent communications with the House and delay in implementation by House officers followed.

Applicable Law and Rules

1987 Constitution: Article IX‑C Section 3 (COMELEC may sit en banc and review motions for reconsideration); Article VI Section 17 (HRET is the sole judge of contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of its members).
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881): Section 68 (grounds for disqualification by COMELEC), Section 72 (priority and effect of disqualification proceedings), Sections 261, 265, 268 (criminal election offenses, preliminary investigation, trial jurisdiction).
Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reform Law): Section 6 (suspension of proclamation where evidence of guilt is strong, upon motion).
COMELEC procedural rules and resolutions: Resolution No. 3402 (procedure for disqualification cases), Rule 19 (motions for reconsideration), Rule 14 (summons and proof of service), COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 (finality rules for disqualification cases), and judicial standards governing mandamus (Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) distinguishing ministerial duties from discretionary acts.

Uncontroverted Facts

A disqualification petition alleged that Codilla, as mayor, indirectly solicited votes by using city equipment to extract, haul and distribute sand and gravel in Kananga and Matag‑ob. The petition included affidavits, police blotter extracts, and photographs. Codilla denied the allegations and submitted counter‑affidavits, certifications, and other documentary evidence. The Regional Election Director had not completed hearing the disqualification case by election day; Codilla received more votes than Locsin.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC Second Division

The COMELEC Second Division delegated the hearing to the RED but issued an Ex‑Parte Order (May 18, 2001) directing suspension of Codilla’s proclamation on account of the “seriousness of the allegations.” The Second Division later promulgated a Resolution (June 14, 2001) finding Codilla guilty of indirect solicitation and disqualifying him, declaring his votes stray and directing immediate proclamation of Locsin; the Provincial Board then proclaimed Locsin and she took her oath and assumed office.

Proceedings Before the COMELEC En Banc

Codilla timely filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc and a petition for declaration of nullity of Locsin’s proclamation. The en banc considered dissents from Commissioners who had reevaluated the evidence and found in favor of Codilla. On August 29, 2001, the en banc majority (Chairman Benipayo and three Commissioners) reversed the Second Division for insufficiency of evidence, lifted the suspension of proclamation, declared Locsin’s proclamation null and void, and ordered the Provincial Board to reconvene and proclaim Codilla; the decision was final and not appealed by Locsin.

House Response and HRET Proceedings

Despite receipt of the COMELEC en banc decision, implementation by the House was delayed. Locsin asserted that COMELEC lacked jurisdiction after she had been proclaimed and had taken oath, citing HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction; House counsel rendered opinions to that effect. An HRET quo warranto proceeding against Locsin (HRET Case No. 01‑043) was dismissed on procedural grounds, but Locsin did not appeal the COMELEC en banc decision annulling her proclamation. The Speaker raised concerns about having two legislators occupy one seat and indicated preference for Supreme Court adjudication.

Issues Presented

The court distilled three core issues: (1) whether Locsin’s proclamation by the COMELEC Second Division was valid; (2) whether Locsin’s proclamation divested the COMELEC en banc of jurisdiction to review and annul it; and (3) assuming invalidity of Locsin’s proclamation, whether the Speaker and Secretary‑General had a ministerial duty to install Codilla and register him in the Roll of Members.

Analysis — Validity of Locsin’s Proclamation: Due Process and Procedural Violations

The court found Locsin’s proclamation null and void primarily because Codilla was denied procedural due process. COMELEC rules required service of summons within three days of filing the disqualification petition and return of proof of service; the record lacked proof that Codilla was properly summoned or served with motions to suspend his proclamation. The Second Division suspended Codilla’s proclamation without a finding that the evidence of guilt was strong as required by R.A. No. 6646, and did so on the same day a motion was filed, giving Codilla no opportunity to respond. The Second Division also failed to conduct a full hearing on the disqualification case as required by COMELEC rules; treating a hearing on the Motion to Lift the suspension as substituting for a hearing on the disqualification was improper.

Analysis — Validity of Locsin’s Proclamation: Insufficiency of Evidence and Misapplication of Law

The Second Division relied primarily on opposing affidavits without hearing affiants or considering the petitioner’s evidence; many affidavits were hearsay or insufficient to establish the essential elements of Section 68 (that a candidate personally or through instructions gave material consideration to influence voters). The Second Division also grounded its action on provisions of Section 261 (criminal election offenses) beyond the COMELEC’s power to disqualify under Section 68; criminal allegations under Section 261 call for preliminary investigation and prosecution, not automatic disqualification proceedings. The en banc correctly concluded that, on the totality of evidence including Codilla’s additional affidavits and certifications, the proof was insufficient to disqualify him.

Analysis — Votes Cannot Be Declared Stray Where Disqualification Is Not Final

The Second Division ordered exclusion of Codilla’s votes as stray and immediate proclamation of Locsin despite a timely motion for reconsideration that suspended execution under COMELEC rules. Under the relevant statutes and COMELEC rules, votes of a candidate cannot be treated as stray unless a disqualification has been declared by final judgment before the election; where a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, execution of the deciding resolution is suspended pending en banc review. Consequently, the immediate declaration of votes as stray and proclamation of the second placer was

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150605)

Case Caption, Decision and Posting

Reported at 442 Phil. 139, En Banc, G.R. No. 150605, dated December 10, 2002.
Decision authored by Justice Puno, J., with concurrence by Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.; Carpio, J., took no part.
Petition for Mandamus and Quo Warranto filed by petitioner Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr., against respondents Speaker Jose De Venecia, Secretary-General Roberto P. Nazareno, and Ma. Victoria L. Locsin.
Relief sought: (a) writ of mandamus directing the Speaker to administer oath to petitioner and the Secretary-General to register petitioner in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives; and (b) quo warranto against Locsin for usurping and unlawfully holding office based on a void proclamation.

Core Facts (Uncontroverted)

Petitioner Codilla and respondent Locsin were candidates for Representative, 4th legislative district of Leyte in the May 14, 2001 elections.
At the time of the election, petitioner was Mayor of Ormoc City; Locsin was the sitting Representative.
Election results showed Codilla with 71,350 votes and Locsin with 53,447 votes — a difference of 17,903 votes in favor of petitioner.
A Petition for Disqualification (SPA No. 01-208) was filed on May 8, 2001 by Josephine de la Cruz, a registered voter of Kananga, Leyte, alleging indirect solicitation of votes by Codilla in violation of Section 68(a) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Allegation specifics: petitioner used City Government of Ormoc equipment and vehicles to extract, haul and distribute gravel and sand to residents of Kananga and Matag-ob to induce votes.
The petition for disqualification included multiple affidavits (Basilio Bates; Danilo D. Maglasang; Cesar A. Laurente), a joint affidavit (Agripino C. Alferez and Rogelio T. Salvera), police blotter extracts, and photographs allegedly showing government dump trucks and road works.

Initial COMELEC Processing and Field Delegation

SPA No. 01-208 assigned to COMELEC Second Division; on May 10, 2001, Second Division delegated hearing and reception of evidence to the Office of the Regional Director, Region VIII.
May 11, 2001: COMELEC Second Division sent a telegram informing petitioner that a disqualification case was filed and remanded to the Regional Election Director for investigation.
At election time (May 14, 2001), Regional Election Director had not yet heard the disqualification case; petitioner remained on ballot and initial tallies showed petitioner the winner.

Interventions, Motions to Suspend Proclamation and COMELEC Second Division Order

May 16, 2001: Locsin joined as intervenor in SPA No. 128 and filed a "Most Urgent Motion to Suspend Proclamation of Respondent" (alleging strong evidence on record against petitioner and requesting suspension to avoid mootness).
Service: Locsin’s first motion allegedly served by registered mail but without attached registry receipt; second motion (May 18, 2001) had registry receipt attached but record does not establish the date petitioner received it.
May 18, 2001: COMELEC Second Division issued an Ex-Parte Order directing Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to suspend proclamation of petitioner (if he obtained the highest votes) citing “seriousness of the allegations” and directed Regional Election Director to speed up reception of evidence and forward records.
As a result, petitioner was not proclaimed despite final results showing petitioner obtained the highest number of votes.

Petitioner's Procedural Responses and Filings

Petitioner asserts he had not been summoned or served with the petition or motions and only learned of proceedings via COMELEC telegram; obtained petition copy from COMELEC Regional Office and filed Answer on May 24, 2001.
Petitioner’s Answer alleged lack of service, lack of summons, and that road works in Matag-ob and Kananga were undertaken without his authority as Mayor; attached affidavits and minutes.
May 25, 2001: Petitioner filed Motion to Lift Order of Suspension alleging denial of opportunity to rebut, lack of summons, late receipt of telegraphed Order; attached documentary evidence and requested hearing.
May 30, 2001: oral argument on petitioner’s Motion; parties ordered to submit memoranda.
June 4, 2001: petitioner submitted memorandum supporting Motion to Lift suspension; attached additional certifications and affidavits.
Petitioner later filed Motion for Reconsideration (June 20, 2001) from June 14 Resolution and Addendum; also filed Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Proclamation with COMELEC en banc (SPC No. 01-324) on June 21, 2001.

COMELEC Second Division Resolution and Aftermath

June 14, 2001: COMELEC Second Division promulgated Resolution in SPA No. 01-208 finding petitioner guilty of indirect solicitation of votes and ordered his disqualification, and directed immediate proclamation of candidate with highest number of votes (thereby declaring petitioner’s 71,350 votes stray).
June 15, 2001: Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte proclaimed Locsin as duly elected Representative, issued Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation stating Locsin obtained 53,447 votes representing highest number of votes legally cast.
Locsin took oath June 18, 2001 and assumed office June 30, 2001.
Petitioner timely filed Motion for Reconsideration to COMELEC en banc (June 20) and Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Proclamation to COMELEC en banc (June 21). Locsin answered asserting COMELEC lost jurisdiction and HRET exclusive jurisdiction over questions of election, returns and qualifications of Members.

Additional Evidence and Pleadings

Petitioner later filed Urgent Manifestation (June 28) arguing denial of fair hearing on disqualification because Second Division ruled on main case instead of motion; submitted additional affidavits he claimed would refute allegations.
Parties filed Reply, Rejoinder and Sur-rejoinder; memoranda and additional affidavits were part of the record.
Record reveals a Resolution initially penned by Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier (dated July 24, 2001) dismissing petition for nullity and denying Codilla’s motion; Commissioners Tuason, Borra, and Lantion filed dissents, with Tuason later concluding totality of evidence favored petitioner after considering additional evidence.

COMELEC En Banc Action and Vote

August 29, 2001: COMELEC Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo issued Vote and Opinion and Summary of Votes reversing the Second Division Resolution, declaring the proclamation of Locsin null and void, and granting petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and petition for declaration of nullity.
Dispositive directives by Chairman Benipayo included:
- Grant Motion for Reconsideration; reverse Second Division Resolution for insufficiency of evidence.
- Lift the Second Division’s order of suspension of proclamation (found issued without hearing and null and void).
- Nullify Second Division order directing immediate proclamation of second highest vote-getter and ruling votes for Codilla stray — found violative of election laws and jurisprudence.
- Order Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte, upon finality, to reconvene and proclaim petitioner as winning candidate and issue Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation.
- Order Locsin, upon finality, to vacate office and inform the House of Representatives through Hon. Speaker.
Summary of votes: Chairman and Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., and Ralph C. Lantion formed the majority (four votes). A resolution submitted by Commissioners Javier, Luzviminda G. Tancangco, and Mehol K. Sadain constituted the minority. The majority decision was adopted but no single majority opinion was written; the Chairman and three Commissioners each wrote separate opinions and Lantion wrote an explanation on his vote.

Post-COMELEC En Banc Events and House Response

Locsin did not appeal the COMELEC en banc decision annulling her proclamation but filed Comment and Manifestation questioning procedure and manner of decision issuance.
Locsin obtained opinion from House Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel Leonardo B. Palicte III asserting COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to nullify her proclamation after she took oath and assumed office, as HRET is sole judge of Members’ election, returns and qualifications.
Locsin made a privileged speech to the House (September 4, 2001) declaring she would openly defy and disobey the COMELEC en banc resolution.
COMELEC en banc (September 6, 2001) issued Order constituting members of Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte to implement decision, reconvene, and proclaim candidate who obtained highest votes based on city/municipal certificates of canvass.
September 12, 2001: Provincial Board proclaimed petitioner Codilla as duly-elected Representative (71,350 votes) and petitioner took oath before Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
Petitioner wrote Speaker De Venecia (September 14, 2001) notifying House of COMELEC en banc resolution and his assumption of duties; requested rights and privileges of office be accorded.
House Legal Affairs Deputy Secretary-General issued memorandum (October 8, 2001) stating no legal obstacle to complying with final and executory COMELEC decision.
Despite receipt of COMELEC en banc resolution by House on September 20, 2001