Title
Dayao vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 193643
Decision Date
Jan 29, 2013
Petitioners challenged LPGMA's party-list registration, alleging non-marginalization. COMELEC dismissed the complaint; SC ruled the issue moot after LPGMA's accreditation was retained post-review.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 21327)

Factual Background

The petitioners, who are dealers of various liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) brands, filed a complaint against LPGMA, asserting that it does not represent a marginalized sector of society. LPGMA, a non-profit association, contends that it aims to advocate for fair trade practices and represent small industry players in the LPG and energy sector, seeking accreditation to participate in the May 10, 2010 elections. Initially, the COMELEC approved LPGMA's registration on January 5, 2010, following an unopposed petition. The petitioners subsequently filed a complaint for cancellation four months later, arguing that LPGMA's members are not marginalized and instead control a significant portion of the LPG retail market.

Legal Framework

Under Republic Act No. 7941, the Party-List System Act, the grounds and procedures for refusal and cancellation of registration of party-list organizations are outlined in Section 6. The law allows the COMELEC to refuse or cancel registration upon verified complaint or its own initiative after due notice and hearing.

COMELEC Resolutions

Upon reviewing the petitioners' complaint, the COMELEC dismissed it for two principal reasons: first, the petitioners failed to cite valid grounds for cancellation as enumerated in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941; and second, the complaint was deemed a belated opposition to LPGMA's already approved registration. The COMELEC noted that the purpose of publication was to notify potential oppositors, and the delay in filing the complaint undermined the finality of its prior approval.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners contended that the COMELEC exercised grave abuse of discretion by dismissing their complaint without addressing the merits. In contrast, LPGMA maintained that the complaint posed factual questions not suited for resolution in a Rule 65 certiorari context and that their qualifications had been adequately vetted prior to registration.

Court's Ruling

The Court determined that while the grounds for cancellation of registration were not properly invoked by the petitioners, the dismissal of the complaint was ultimately justified in light of the COMELEC’s Resolution dated December 13, 2012, which reaffirmed LPGMA's compliance with statutory requirements. The Court clarified that the finality of a favorable resolution granting registration does not preclude the validity of a challenge to a party-list organization’s qualifications under Section 6.

Clarification on Legal Procedures

The ruling indicates that the requirement for a prior opposition to the registration petition does not exist within the statutory framework. Cancellation and registration are distinct

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.