Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19147-48)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Relief Sought
Lara filed a Petition for Disqualification alleging massive vote‑buying and unlawful disbursement of public funds by Mamba in violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881). She asserted that Mamba used provincial government funds to distribute cash assistance under programs described as “No Barangay Left Behind,” “No Town Left Behind,” “Oplan Tulong sa Barangay,” and “Krusada Kontra Korapsyon” during the campaign period she identified as March 25 to May 8, 2022. Lara also sought an order directing the Board of Canvassers to suspend and hold in abeyance any proclamation of Mamba should he receive the highest number of votes.
Procedural Timeline and Key Dates
- Petition for Disqualification filed by electronic mail: May 10, 2022, at 6:21 p.m. (time stamp on email).
- Provincial Board of Canvassers proclamation of Mamba as winner: May 11, 2022, at 1:39:59 a.m.
- COMELEC Second Division Resolution (granting petition and disqualifying Mamba): December 14, 2022.
- COMELEC En Banc Resolution (dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction as filed out of time): March 6, 2023.
- Petition for Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court challenging COMELEC En Banc action: April 5, 2023.
- Supreme Court decision resolving the certiorari petition and remanding the case: August 6, 2024.
Applicable Law and Rules
- 1987 Constitution (notably Article IX‑C on COMELEC powers — exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of elective provincial officials).
- Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881): Section 68 (disqualifications) and Section 261(v) (prohibition against release/disbursement/expenditure of public funds within 45 days before a regular election).
- COMELEC Rules of Procedure (Rule 25 on Disqualification of Candidates, particularly Section 3 on the period to file petitions: “any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation”).
- COMELEC Resolution No. 10673 (Guidelines on Electronic Filing) — Section 5 setting email filing schedule (Monday–Friday, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; emails received beyond 5:00 p.m. considered filed at 8:00 a.m. of the next working day).
- Civil Code (Article 13: interpretation of “days” as twenty‑four hours each).
- Republic Act No. 6646 (Section 6 on effect of disqualification case — COMELEC or court shall continue trial/hearing even if candidate is not declared disqualified before election and may order suspension of proclamation when evidence of guilt is strong).
COMELEC Second Division Ruling (December 14, 2022)
The COMELEC Second Division gave due course to Lara’s petition and concluded that the evidence did not establish a Section 68 violation (vote‑buying with intent to influence voters) but was substantial to prove violation of Section 261(v) — unauthorized release/disbursement of public funds during the 45‑day prohibitory period. Mamba’s admission that disbursements occurred during the prohibited period supported the Second Division’s finding. The Second Division therefore granted the disqualification relief based on Section 261(v) and forwarded the record to the COMELEC Law Department for preliminary investigation of election offenses.
COMELEC En Banc Ruling (March 6, 2023)
The COMELEC En Banc dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was filed belatedly under COMELEC Resolution No. 10673. Applying Section 5 of Resolution No. 10673, the En Banc deemed email filings after 5:00 p.m. to be filed at 8:00 a.m. of the next working day. The petition’s 6:21 p.m. timestamp on May 10, 2022, was therefore treated as filed at 8:00 a.m. on May 11, 2022 — after Mamba’s proclamation at 1:39 a.m. on May 11. The En Banc concluded that Mamba’s proclamation divested the Commission of authority to hear the disqualification petition filed after proclamation and thus dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; the criminal aspect was referred to the Law Department.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by (1) dismissing Lara’s Petition for Disqualification for lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed, and (2) declining to affirm the Second Division’s disqualification of Mamba.
Standard of Review and Threshold for Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and will intervene only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion — defined as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The Court’s review in certiorari is therefore limited to legal control over the COMELEC’s exercise of discretion.
Supreme Court Holding — Grav e Abuse and Need for Liberal Application of Procedural Rules
The Court held that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Petition for Disqualification as filed out of time. The Court emphasized the special public interest character of election cases and the long‑standing jurisprudential principle favoring the liberal application of procedural rules in elections to secure substantial justice and avoid disposing of rights on mere technicalities. The Court found analogous authority in Uy v. COMELEC, where the COMELEC had relaxed electronic filing rules in the interest of justice.
Interpretation of Rule 25 Section 3 and the Meaning of “Date of Proclamation”
The Court construed Rule 25, Section 3 (a petition “shall be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation”) in light of Article 13 of the Civil Code. Under Article 13, “days” are twenty‑four hours; accordingly, the Court interpreted “date of proclamation” to mean the full calendar day on which the proclamation occurs (i.e., a full 24‑hour period), permitting a petition filed on that date — even after the exact time of proclamation — to be within the filing period. The Court held that a petition for disqualification based on Section 68 of the OEC may therefore be filed from the whole day after the last day for filing candidacies up to the end of the day of proclamation.
Reconciliation of COMELEC Resolution No. 10673 (Electronic Filing Schedule) with Rule 25
The Court reasoned that COMELEC Resolution No. 10673’s deeming provision (emails received after 5:00 p.m. are considered filed at 8:00 a.m. next working day) cannot be mechanically applied to trump the substantive filing period tied to proclamation. The Court noted the practical realities of electronic filing — emails can be sent and actually received at any hour and the COMELEC, equipped with technological resources, may access filings outside conventional office hours — and thus procedural rules governing office hours should yield where they produce unfair results vis‑à‑vis substantive filing deadlines grounded in law. Accordingly, Lara’s email filed at 6:21 p.m. on May 10, 2022, could not be considered out of time for purposes of the Rule 25 deadline, especially given that the proclamation fell within the next calendar day.
Substantive and Constitutional Considerations (COMELEC Jurisdiction)
The Court reiterated that COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to elections and qualifications of elective provincial officials under the 1987 Constitution (Article IX‑C, Section 2(2)). Rules of procedure promulgated by COMELEC cannot be used to divest the Commission of jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and statutes; procedural rules are subordinate to substantive law. The Court also cited RA No. 6646, Section 6, obliging COMELEC or the court to continue trial and hearing of disqualification actions even if the candidate was proclaimed, and allowing suspension of proclamation when evidence of guilt is strong.
Prospective Application and Fairness
Recognizing that its interpretation departs from previous practice, the Court limited the new guidelines to prospective application so as not to prejudice parties who relied in good faith on the former view. The Court explicitly instructed that the harmonized interpretation concerning electronic filing and the “date of proclamation” be applied prospectively to avoid unfair
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19147-48)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Certiorari filed by Ma. Zarah Rose De Guzman-Lara (Lara) assailing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc Resolution dated March 6, 2023 that dismissed Lara’s Petition for Disqualification; Lara prayed that the COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated December 14, 2022 be affirmed.
- COMELEC Second Division (Dec. 14, 2022) granted Lara’s Petition for Disqualification and disqualified Manuel N. Mamba (Mamba) as candidate for Governor of Cagayan in the May 9, 2022 elections; referred criminal aspect to COMELEC Law Department for preliminary investigation.
- COMELEC En Banc (Mar. 6, 2023) dismissed the Petition for Disqualification for lack of jurisdiction, ruling the petition was filed out of time under COMELEC Resolution No. 10673 (electronic filing rules) because the e-mailed petition was deemed filed at 8:00 a.m. of the next working day when submitted after 5:00 p.m., and Mamba had been proclaimed early that next day.
- Lara filed Petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court on April 5, 2023 raising jurisdictional grave abuse and asking affirmation of the Second Division’s disqualification decision.
- Supreme Court (En Banc) granted the Petition for Certiorari, found grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC En Banc, annulled and set aside the March 6, 2023 En Banc Resolution, and remanded the case to COMELEC En Banc for proper disposition.
Antecedent Facts
- During the May 2022 National and Local Elections, Lara and Mamba were candidates for Governor of the Province of Cagayan; Mamba was the incumbent, first elected in May 2019.
- Lara filed a Petition for Disqualification dated May 10, 2022, alleging massive vote-buying and unlawful disbursement of public funds in violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
- Lara alleged Mamba used provincial government funds to distribute cash assistance (“ayuda”) under programs titled: “No Barangay Left Behind,” “No Town Left Behind,” “Oplan Tulong sa Barangay,” and “Krusada Kontra Korapsyon.”
- Lara alleged disbursements occurred during the campaign/prohibitory period of March 25 to May 8, 2022.
- The Petition was sent by electronic mail on May 10, 2022 at 6:21 p.m. (time stamp attached to the record).
- The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Mamba as duly elected Governor on May 11, 2022 at 1:39:59 a.m.
COMELEC Second Division Findings and Ruling (Dec. 14, 2022)
- The Second Division found that the evidence was not substantial to prove disqualification under Section 68 (i.e., that acts were done to influence, induce, or corrupt voters) because the distributions were implemented in Mamba’s capacity as Governor and it was not shown they were intended to influence voters.
- The Second Division found, however, that Lara had submitted substantial evidence proving violation of Section 261(v) of the OEC (prohibition on release/disbursement/expenditure of public funds during the 45-day period before a regular election).
- Mamba admitted disbursements during the prohibited period (March 25 to May 8, 2022) for several programs.
- Conclusion: the Petition was GRANTED; Mamba was DISQUALIFIED as a candidate for Governor; records were to be forwarded to the COMELEC Law Department for preliminary investigation of election offense.
COMELEC En Banc Rationale for Dismissal (Mar. 6, 2023)
- Relied on Section 5, Rule 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10673 (Guidelines on Electronic Filing): e-mails received beyond 5:00 p.m. are considered filed at 8:00 a.m. of the next working day.
- The petition was e-mailed at 6:21 p.m. on May 10, 2022 and thus deemed filed at 8:00 a.m. on May 11, 2022.
- Mamba’s proclamation occurred at 1:39:59 a.m. on May 11, 2022, which the En Banc held divested the Commission of authority to hear disqualification cases filed after proclamation.
- Holding: the petition was filed belatedly and the remedy was wrong after proclamation; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; criminal aspect referred to Law Department.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by:
- Dismissing the Petition for Disqualification for lack of jurisdiction (filed out of time under electronic filing rules); and
- Not affirming the COMELEC Second Division’s December 14, 2022 Resolution finding Mamba disqualified.
Petitioner’s Contentions Before the Supreme Court
- The COMELEC should adopt a liberal construction of its rules given the gravity and public interest in election cases.
- The Petition was filed by e-mail on May 10, 2022 at 6:21 p.m., and Mamba’s proclamation occurred only hours later on May 11, 2022 at 1:39 a.m.; only about seven hours elapsed.
- The Petition therefore was effectively filed before the proclamation and should be considered timely; the strict application of the e-filing cutoff produced an unjust result.
Respondents’ Contentions (COMELEC and Mamba)
- COMELEC: acted within jurisdiction in dismissing the Petition because proclamation divested it of jurisdiction to hear the case; no basis to relax rules.
- Mamba: COMELEC En Banc correctly dismissed the Petition as filed after the elections; post-proclamation remedy would be quo warranto; argued against any relaxation of filing deadlines and raised procedural contentions:
- Lara paid filing fees after Mamba’s proclamation;
- Lara allegedly made a belated change of theory and did not explain why petition was filed only after elections.
Standard Applied: Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Supreme Court defines grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction — so patent and gross as to amount to evasion or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
- The Court intervenes only upon a showing that the COMELEC exercised power capriciously, arbitrarily, or without basis under law or the Constitution.
Supreme Court Majority Holding (Lopez, J.)
- The