G.R. No. 94010 - Evardone vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 94010)

Facts concerning the recall petition and local actions

Evardone was elected mayor in 1988. On 14 February 1990 Apelado, Aclan and Nival filed a petition for recall with the Local Election Registrar of Sulat. The Election Registrar recommended that signing be held, and COMELEC, in its en banc meeting on 20 June 1990, approved holding the signing on 14 July 1990 pursuant to its rules.

TRO issuance and service timeline

Evardone filed a petition for prohibition (docketed G.R. No. 94010) on 10 July 1990. This Court issued a TRO on 12 July 1990 ordering respondents to cease and desist from holding the signing process scheduled for 14 July 1990. The COMELEC Central Office received notice of the TRO on 12 July, but the COMELEC field agent in Sulat received telegraphic notice only on 15 July 1990, after the signing had already occurred on 14 July.

COMELEC nullification and denial of reconsideration

COMELEC en banc, by Resolution No. 90-0660 (26 July 1990), nullified the signing process held in Sulat as violative of the TRO issued by this Court. The recall proponents moved for reconsideration; COMELEC denied the motion on 29 August 1990, reasoning that notice of the TRO upon the principal COMELEC on 12 July 1990 was the critical date, not the date of notice to a field agent.

Legal issues presented

The principal issues presented to the Court were (1) whether COMELEC’s Resolution No. 2272 (23 May 1990), which embodied general rules for recall elections, was constitutional and a valid exercise of COMELEC’s authority, and (2) whether the TRO issued by this Court rendered the July 14 signing nugatory given the delay in service on the COMELEC field agent.

Evardone’s constitutional argument regarding the Local Government Code

Evardone contended that Article X, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution mandated Congress to enact a new Local Government Code and that, because such a code had not yet been enacted during the material period, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 was effectively repealed or inapplicable; thus, COMELEC lacked a legal basis to promulgate rules (Resolution No. 2272) for recall proceedings and the recall was premature.

COMELEC’s response and the Court’s view on existing law

COMELEC argued that the constitutional provision contemplated both a future code and the continued operation of existing law pending enactment of a new code, and that BP Blg. 337 remained operative to the extent not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution. The Court agreed, invoking Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which preserves existing laws not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court noted that Sections 54–59 of BP Blg. 337 (the recall mechanism) were not inconsistent with the Constitution and that Section 59 expressly authorized COMELEC to conduct and supervise recall and promulgate necessary rules.

Validation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2272

Relying on the rule-making authority conferred by BP Blg. 337 and the absence of conflicting constitutional provisions, the Court ruled that COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 (23 May 1990) was valid and constitutional. The Court further observed that although Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) later repealed BP Blg. 337, that repeal was not effective until 1 January 1992, so BP Blg. 337 remained the applicable law for the events in this case.

Effect of the TRO and legal effect of the signing process

The Court held that the signing process conducted on 14 July 1990 was valid and had legal effect: the constituents and the Election Registrar acted in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO at the time of signing. The Court emphasized Evardone’s prior notice of the recall filing (registry receipt) and his delay in acting; he filed his petition for prohibition only on 10 July 1990. The Court applied the precedent in Governor Paredes (and related rulings) that delays in seeking injunctive relief may render relief futile where the contested event has been completed, observing there is “no turning back the clock.” The record showed approximately 2,050 of 6,090 registered voters (~34%) signed the petition.

Limitation on holding a recall

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 94010)

Court, Citation, and Date

En banc decision reported at 281 Phil. 526.
G.R. No. 94010 and G.R. No. 95063 consolidated for disposition.
Decision promulgated December 2, 1991.
Opinion penned by Justice Padilla; Justices Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., and Romero concur; Chief Justice Fernan was on leave.

Case Origin and Procedural Posture

Originated in COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 90-0557 (dated 20 June 1990) approving the Election Registrar of Sulat, Eastern Samar’s recommendation to hold the signing of a petition for recall on 14 July 1990.
G.R. No. 94010: Petition for prohibition filed by Mayor Felipe Evardone with an urgent prayer for a restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the signing scheduled on 14 July 1990.
G.R. No. 95063: Petition for review on certiorari filed by Alexander R. Apelado, Victorino E. Aclan and Noel A. Nival seeking to set aside COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 90-0660 (which nullified the 14 July 1990 signing) and en banc Resolution No. 90-0777 (which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration).
This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 12 July 1990 in G.R. No. 94010, effective immediately and continuing until further orders.
The COMELEC Central Office received notice of the TRO on 12 July 1990; the field agent (local COMELEC officer) received telegraphic notice only on 15 July 1990—one day after the signing took place.
COMELEC en banc, by Resolution No. 90-0660 dated 26 July 1990, nullified the signing held in Sulat for being violative of the TRO; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 29 August 1990 on the ground that the critical date is service of the TRO on the principal (COMELEC), not on its field agent.
The present consolidated petitions placed before the Court the validity of COMELEC’s rules on recall and the legal effect of the signing conducted on 14 July 1990 in light of the TRO.

Material Facts

Felipe Evardone was elected Mayor of Sulat, Eastern Samar in the 1988 local elections and assumed office immediately after proclamation.
On 14 February 1990, Alexander R. Apelado, Victorino E. Aclan and Noel A. Nival filed a petition for the recall of Mayor Evardone with the Office of the Local Election Registrar of Sulat.
Election Registrar Vedasto B. Sumbilla recommended that the signing of the recall petition be held on 14 July 1990; COMELEC en banc approved this recommendation by Resolution No. 90-0557 (20 June 1990).
Evardone filed his petition for prohibition on 10 July 1990 (docketed as G.R. No. 94010); this Court issued a TRO on 12 July 1990.
The TRO notice was received by COMELEC Central Office on 12 July 1990; the field agent received telegraphic notice on 15 July 1990.
Despite the TRO, the signing proceeded on 14 July 1990; Election Registrar Sumbilla attested that approximately 2,050 of 6,090 registered voters (about 34%) signed the petition for recall.
The signing process was undertaken by constituents and the Election Registrar in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO.

Issues Presented

Whether COMELEC’s Resolution No. 2272 (promulgated 23 May 1990) — the general rules and regulations on the recall of elective provincial, city and municipal officials — is constitutional and valid as promulgated under COMELEC’s powers.
Whether the TRO issued by this Court on 12 July 1990 rendered nugatory or void the signing process for the recall petition held on 14 July 1990 when the field agent received notice only on 15 July 1990.
Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion (or acted without jurisdiction) in approving the Election Registrar’s recommendation to hold the signing without giving Evardone “his day in court.”
Whether Section 3, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, by requiring Congress to enact a local government code, effected a repeal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (BP Blg. 337) making COMELEC’s rule-making thereunder invalid in the absence of a new local government code enacted by Congress.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner Evardone (G.R. No. 94010):
- COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the Election Registrar’s recommendation to hold the signing without affording Evardone an opportunity to be heard.
- COMELEC committed grave abuse and acted without jurisdiction in promulgating Resolution No. 2272 (May 22, 1990) which is unconstitutional and void because Article X, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution requires a new local government code to be enacted by Congress, and no such code existed at the time; therefore, BP Blg. 337 had been superseded.
- Alleged that he first learned of the COMELEC resolution setting the signing on or about 3 July 1990.
Petitioners Apelado, et al. (G.R. No. 95063):
- Raised the specific issue whether the signing process on 14 July 1990 was rendered nugatory by the TRO issued on 12 July 1990 but received by the COMELEC field agent only on 15 July 1990.
Respondent COMELEC (in its Comment in G.R. No. 94010):
- Argued that the constitutional provision (Article X, Section 3) contemplates both a future local government code and the continuance of existing law in the interim; therefore BP Blg. 337 remains operative pending enactment of a new local government code, unless particular provisions are irreconcilable with the 1987 Constitution.
- Maintained that Sections 54 to 59 of BP Blg. 337 are not inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore remain operative.
- Asserted that Section 59 of BP Blg. 337 expressly authorizes COMELEC to conduct and supervise recall elections and to promulgate necessary rules and regulations; relying on that authority, COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2272 on 23 May 1990.

Relevant Legal Provisions and Authorities Cited

Article X, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution (quoted in the decision):
- “Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and r