Title
Flores vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 89604
Decision Date
Apr 20, 1990
Barangay election dispute: Roque Flores lost by one vote after contested ballots were invalidated. COMELEC's jurisdiction upheld; equity-of-the-incumbent rule denied as Flores was deemed resigned. Rapisora declared winner.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 89604)

Election Contest and Lower Courts’ Decisions

Flores won the election with votes one vote higher than Rapisora, but Rapisora challenged the results by alleging that two votes credited to Flores were stray votes. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum, Abra, ruled in favor of Rapisora, reducing Flores’ vote count by two and thus declaring Rapisora the winner. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Abra, which further ruled that four votes cast simply for “Flores” without a distinguishing first name or initial should be treated as invalid in total because of confusion with another candidate named Anastacio Flores.

Commission on Elections’ Jurisdictional Ruling

Flores appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of the RTC. This dismissal was based on Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6679, which provided that decisions of the trial and regional trial courts in barangay election protests were final and non-appealable on questions of fact. Under this provision, COMELEC considered that appeals from the RTC were barred.

Constitutional Challenge on the Appeal Process and Jurisdiction

The Solicitor General argued, invoking Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, that COMELEC should have exercised exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction. The argument underscored that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court being of limited jurisdiction made the RTC’s decisions invalid for appeal, and the appeal should have been lodged directly with COMELEC, bypassing the RTC altogether.

Supreme Court’s Declaration on Section 9 of RA 6679

The Supreme Court reviewed existing jurisprudence, including Luison v. Garcia, which established that election contest cases governed by exclusive jurisdiction provisions should follow the proper appellate route consistent with constitutional mandates. The Court found Section 9 of RA 6679 unconstitutional insofar as it allowed appeals from decisions of municipal or metropolitan trial courts to the RTC. This ruling was made to ensure compliance with the constitutional provision granting COMELEC exclusive appellate jurisdiction over barangay election contests decided by courts of limited jurisdiction.

Court’s Application of Jurisdiction Despite Petitioner’s Procedural Departure

Although Flores initially appealed to the RTC as prescribed by the now-declared-unconstitutional Section 9 of RA 6679, the Court exercised judicial grace and excused the petitioner from this procedural misstep. The Court treated the petitioner’s appeal as if it were directly made to COMELEC and accepted jurisdiction over his claims. The Court emphasized that decisions, final orders, or rulings of COMELEC on municipal or barangay election contests are final and executory but remain subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court on questions of law.

Equity-of-the-Incumbent Rule and Eligibility to Vote Dispute

Flores contended that four disputed votes cast simply as “Flores” should have been credited to him under the equity-of-the-incumbent rule as set forth in Section 211(2) of the Omnibus Election Code. This rule is intended to protect an incumbent candidate from losing votes due to ambiguity in the ballots when candidates share a name, provided the incumbent is running for the same office.

Commission Resolution and the Issue of Incumbency

COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2022-A, Section 16(3), which held that incumbent barangay captains (punong barangay), upon filing certificates of candidacy for kagawad, are deemed resigned from their office. The municipal court held that Flores was not incumbent at the time of his candidacy for kagawad under this resolution, leading to the classification of the four questioned votes as stray.

Analysis of the Exclusivity of Position and the Filing for Kagawad

Flores argued that under Section 8 of RA 6679, incumbent elective officials running for the same office should not be considered resigned and should continue in office until successors qualify. He further asserted that as the punong barangay is the highest-ranking kagawad (councilor) under Section 5 of RA 6679, he should be considered running for the same office and thus entitled to the equity rule.

Supreme Court’s Rejection of Flores’ Interpretation

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument, distinguishing the office of punong barangay as an executive position separate from the legislative kagawad roles. The Court recognized COMELEC’s resolution as a reasonable implementation of RA 6679 and authorized under Section 52 of the Omnibus Election Code, which empowers COMELEC to promulgate rules implementing electoral laws. The Court underscored that Flores was elected in 1982 as barangay captain (punong barangay), a position separate and prior to the present law where the punong barangay is elected by being the highest vote-getter as kagawad. Therefore, by filing candidacy for kagawad in 1989, Flores effectively resigned from his position as punong barangay.

Delineation of Punong Barangay and Kagawad Positions

The Court elaborated that the punong barangay performs executive functions, while kagawads exercise legislative functions, although both constitute the sangguniang barangay. It emphasized that the petitioner’s certificate of candidacy was only for kagawad, not punong barangay, and thus he could not claim incumbency of the punong barangay office for purposes of the equity rule

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms