Case Summary (G.R. No. 197358)
Petitions and Key Dates
- Proclamation of Datu Jamil Dimaporo as Mayor-elect: February 3, 1988.
- Two petitions seeking annulment of that proclamation filed by defeated candidates (one on February 15, 1988; another on February 17, 1988).
- Secretary of Local Governments designated Maclis Balt OIC-Mayor: May 19, 1988; Governor Pangarungan lifted suspension of certain provincial processing in memorandum dated May 23, 1988.
- COMELEC First Division dismissed the petitions and affirmed the proclamation: Decision promulgated July 11, 1988; motions for reconsideration were timely filed.
- Vice-Governor (acting) indorsed documents to Provincial Fiscal for legal opinion: indorsement dated August 1, 1988; written opinion returned August 5, 1988.
- Motion for contempt by Datu Dimaporo filed with COMELEC en banc: August 22, 1988.
- COMELEC en banc Resolution finding contempt and imposing fine (P500 each): October 28, 1988; motion for reconsideration denied January 12, 1989.
Applicable Law and Rules Cited
- 1987 Constitution, Article IX, section (c) (assignment in the record as the provision governing COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction in pre-proclamation controversies and the en banc consideration of motions for reconsideration).
- COMELEC Rules: Rule 19 Sec. 2 (effect of timely motion for reconsideration) and Rule 39 Sec. 3 (finality/executory effect of decisions in pre-proclamation cases after five days unless restrained by the Supreme Court) — as referenced in the record.
- Revised Administrative Code, Sec. 1682 (duty of the provincial fiscal to act as legal adviser and to submit written opinions when requested by provincial/muncipal officers).
- Contempt standards described in the record: contempt power to be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle.
Factual Background
- After the municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Dimaporo mayor-elect, two defeated candidates filed petitions with COMELEC First Division seeking annulment of the proclamation. While those petitions were pending, the Secretary of Local Governments designated Maclis Balt as OIC-Mayor and the Governor issued a memorandum lifting certain suspensions and recognizing the OIC designation. Balt thereafter assumed and performed mayoral functions and received funds and performed duties as OIC.
- Following the COMELEC First Division decision affirming the proclamation, counsel for Dimaporo asked the Provincial Governor to recognize Dimaporo as mayor. The Vice‑Governor (acting as OIC Governor) referred those documents to the Provincial Fiscal for legal opinion. The fiscal office (3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal drafting; Provincial Fiscal concurring) issued a written legal opinion stating that because a motion for reconsideration had been timely filed at the Division, the Division’s decision was not yet final and executory, and that the en banc decision and the five‑day rule governed finality pending the possibility of a Supreme Court restraining order.
Motion for Contempt and Respondents’ Defenses
- Dimaporo filed a motion for contempt against the Vice‑Governor and the fiscals, alleging the indorsement and the legal opinion constituted indirect contempt for unlawfully interfering with COMELEC processes, creating confusion about who was the legal mayor, and seeking to undermine COMELEC’s authority. The motion argued that Maclis Balt could not file a motion for reconsideration because he had not been a candidate, and therefore the fiscal opinion was malicious and intended to review and subvert COMELEC actions.
- The Vice‑Governor and the fiscals answered that the Vice‑Governor acted in good faith and referred the matter for legal advice to avoid dereliction; the fiscals maintained they merely stated governing law (citing Article IX, Sec. 3(c) as to en banc disposition of motions for reconsideration) and performed their statutory duty to render written opinion under Sec. 1682 of the Revised Administrative Code. They denied the opinion was a review or an attack on COMELEC and contended no demonstrable prejudice or obstruction of COMELEC processes occurred.
COMELEC En Banc Resolution and Reasoning
- The COMELEC en banc concluded the respondents’ actions amounted to contempt. The en banc characterized the respondents’ legal opinion and related acts as effectively suspending the proclamation’s effect, preventing Dimaporo from discharging mayoral duties, and paving the way for appointment/assumption of office by an OIC who was allegedly related to a party in the petitions. The en banc described the fiscals’ view of the Division’s jurisdiction as a distortion of law and jurisprudence, and found the referral and opinion to be a deliberate contrivance intended to undermine the efficacy of COMELEC’s acts. The Commission imposed a fine of P500 on each respondent and denied reconsideration.
Supreme Court Issues Presented on Certiorari
- Whether the COMELEC en banc lawfully exercised its contempt power against the Provincial Fiscal, 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal, and Vice‑Governor for having sought and rendered a legal opinion concerning the effect of a COMELEC Division decision and the status of municipal leadership while a motion for reconsideration was pending.
- Whether the facts in the record supported COMELEC’s findings that (a) the fiscals’ opinion caused chaos and confusion and (b) the respondents’ actions suspended the proclamation and improperly paved the way for an OIC’s assumption of office.
Supreme Court Analysis — Factual Assessment
- The Court reviewed the record and found the COMELEC en banc’s contempt findings lacked factual foundation. There was no record support for the essential factual predicates COMELEC relied upon: (1) actual chaos or confusion among national, provincial, municipal officials and the public attributable to the fiscal opinion; (2) any suspension of the proclamation’s effects by the respondents; (3) that the OIC was the wife of a party (as alleged); or (4) that the legal opinion was a deliberate contrivance to undermine COMELEC’s decisions. Conversely, the record showed undisputed facts that Dimaporo had not yet enjoyed mayoral powers, had not been paid salary, and had not been accorded recognition by provincial or national government at the times material to the query; and that Balt had been designated and was functioning as OIC prior to and during the query. The Court treated those facts as contradicting the COMELEC en banc’s portrayal of events.
Supreme Court Analysis — Legal Duty to Render Opinion
- The Court emphasized that the Vice‑Governor reasonably sought legal guidance under circumstances of competing claims to authority and potential violence; and that the provincial fiscals’ function to submit written legal opinions upon request is a statutory duty under Revised Admin
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197358)
Procedural Posture and Case Identifiers
- Reported at 258 Phil. 272, En Banc; G.R. Nos. 87014-16; decision dated September 13, 1989.
- The proceeding in the Supreme Court is a special civil action of certiorari challenging the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc Resolution of October 28, 1988 (and the Order of January 12, 1989 denying reconsideration) insofar as those rulings found petitioners in contempt and fined them P500 each.
- Underlying administrative docket references in the COMELEC: SPC No. 88-646 (Datu Abdulmadid Panondiongan Maruhom) and SPC Nos. 88-697 and 88-697-A (Monabai Panondiongan Balt).
- The October 28, 1988 COMELEC en banc Resolution was authored by Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac and concurred in by Chairman Davide and Commissioners Abueg, Jr., Africa, Flores, Rama and Dimaampao (footnote reference in source).
Core Factual Background
- On February 3, 1988, Datu Jamil Dimaporo was proclaimed Mayor-elect of Marogong, Lanao del Sur by the Board of Canvassers.
- Two separate petitions seeking annulment of that proclamation were filed by defeated candidates:
- Datu Abdulmadid Panondiongan Maruhom filed on February 15, 1988 (SPC No. 88-646).
- Monabai Panondiongan Balt filed on February 17, 1988 (SPC Nos. 88-697 and 88-697-A).
- While those petitions were pending before the COMELEC First Division, on May 19, 1988 the Secretary of Local Governments designated Maclis Balt as Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Office of the Mayor of Marogong, Lanao del Sur (vice Abdullah Imam), expressly taking account of the pending petitions and stating the OIC designation was made "in view of the election controversy" to ensure respect for the democratic transition.
- Governor Saidamen Pangarungan issued a memorandum dated May 23, 1988 lifting a suspension order on processing of vouchers and financial matters for Marogong and advising recognition of the Secretary's OIC designations.
Municipal and Provincial Administrative Actions
- On the strength of the Secretary of Local Governments' designation and the Governor's memorandum, Maclis Balt assumed and discharged the functions of OIC Mayor of Marogong.
- Datu Dimaporo, after the COMELEC First Division decision, sought official recognition as Mayor-elect by transmitting the First Division Resolution to the Provincial Governor via counsel (letter dated July 18, 1988 by Mangurun Batuampar).
- The Governor (Vice-Governor acting as OIC Governor at time of indorsement) forwarded those documents to the Provincial Fiscal for legal opinion as to who should be recognized as Municipal Mayor and/or OIC (3rd Indorsement dated August 1, 1988).
COMELEC First Division Decision and Motions for Reconsideration
- The COMELEC First Division rendered a decision on July 11, 1988 dismissing the petitions and affirming the proclamation of Jamil Dimaporo as Mayor-elect.
- Motions for reconsideration of that decision were timely filed by both petitioners (Maruhom and Monabai Balt). The petitioners’ motions were eventually brought to the COMELEC en banc.
- The COMELEC en banc later (October 28, 1988) declared those motions for reconsideration to be without merit and sustained the First Division decision in all cases (as to the pre-proclamation petitions).
Request for Legal Opinion and Response by Provincial Fiscal Office
- The 3rd Indorsement (August 1, 1988) requested the Provincial Fiscal's legal opinion as to who between Datu Jamil Dimaporo and Maclis Balt should be recognized as Mayor/OIC-Mayor of Marogong, with "early action" desired.
- The Provincial Fiscal's legal opinion was communicated by 4th Indorsement dated August 5, 1988, signed by 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal Maranao C. Danganan with the conformity ("conforme") of Provincial Fiscal Salic B. Dumarpa.
- The opinion (as indorsed) opined that Datu Maclis Balt was still the Mayor of Marogong pursuant to Section 3, paragraph C, Article IX of the Constitution, reasoning that a timely-filed motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC Division suspends the Division decision’s finality and executory effect, and that the Commission en banc's decision likewise is not final until after five days when no restraining order by the Supreme Court is issued.
- The 4th Indorsement mistakenly stated that OIC Maclis Balt had filed a motion for reconsideration; the record clarifies (and the fiscals later acknowledged) that the motion for reconsideration was actually filed by Monorabai (Monabai) Panondiongan Balt. This error was noted in the source material and acknowledged by the fiscals in their answer to the motion for contempt.
Motion for Contempt Before COMELEC En Banc by Datu Jamil Dimaporo
- Datu Dimaporo filed a motion to hold Provincial Fiscal Salic B. Dumarpa, 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal Maranao C. Danganan, and Vice-Governor Saaddudin Alauya in contempt (motion dated August 22, 1988).
- The motion alleged, inter alia, that:
- The 4th Indorsement wrongly indicated that OIC Maclis Balt had filed a motion for reconsideration (when in fact he was not a candidate).
- The respondents knew or should have known that Maclis Balt had never been a candidate for Mayor and therefore could not file a motion for reconsideration.
- The act of seeking and rendering the legal opinion constituted indirect contempt under Sec. 3-d, Rule 71, Revised Rules of Court (improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice) and unlawful interference with COMELEC processes under Sec. 3-c, Rule 71.
- The opinion caused alleged "chaos and confusion" among officials and the public, resulted in damage to public service, was maliciously motivated, and amounted to an improper review by a Provincial Fiscal of COMELEC decisions.
Responses and Defenses Filed by the Accused (Fiscals and Vice-Governor)
- Vice-Governor Alauya (Vigorous Opposition dated September 15, 1988) asserted:
- OIC Maclis Balt was performing mayoral duties pending final resolution and thus no chaos or confusion resulted.
- The Vice-Governor, faced with conflicting documents and claims, referred the matter to the Provincial Fiscal in his capacity as legal counsel to the province; he acted in good faith to obtain legal advice.
- The legal opinion did not dispute or contradict the force and effect of the First Division resolution; rather, it noted that a timely motion for reconsideration suspends finality, and therefore the Division decision was not yet final and executory.
- The opinion did not constitute a review or reversal of the First Division’s resolution.
- The Vice-Governor acted honestly and without malice, and sought to prevent violence or bloodshed.
- The Provincial Fiscals (Answer dated September 12, 1988 and supporting Memorandum) argued:
- Their written opinion merely stated in three sentences the relevant constitutional provision (Sec. 3, paragraph c, Article IX) and related law, and was not directed at or intended to affront COMELEC’s authority or dignity.
- The opinion lacked punitive value or capacity to interfere with COMELEC processes; it could not be contemned o