Title
Javier vs. Cadiao
Case
G.R. No. 185369
Decision Date
Aug 3, 2016
Dispute over SP Antique's Resolution No. 42-2008 reorganization; petitioners claimed invalid due to insufficient votes. SC ruled Vice Governor's vote not required for majority, resolution validly passed.
majority vote
quorum
court ruling

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45947)

Factual Background

For the years 2007 to 2010, the SP had a political configuration in which the Lakas ng Tao-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-CMD) was considered the majority party at the first regular session held on July 5, 2007. Among the Lakas-CMD were petitioners Javier and Piccio, together with Vice Governor Cadiao and SP member Benjamin E. Juanitas (Juanitas). Piccio was designated as the Majority Floor Leader.

The Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) was treated as the minority party, having four members, including Alfonso V. Combong, Jr. (Combong). Another SP member who won as an independent candidate allied with the NPC, increasing its influence. In addition, the SP had three ex-officio members: the President of the Councilors’ League of Antique, the President of the Association of Barangay Captains, and the President of the Sangguniang Kabataan Federation.

Subsequently, Juanitas left the Lakas-CMD block and joined the NPC, then headed by Combong. Vice Governor Cadiao also followed suit. As the NPC gained superiority in numbers, Combong proposed Resolution No. 42-2008, seeking reorganization of the standing committees. The resolution was placed on the SP’s agenda as an “urgent matter.”

During the SP’s fifth regular session on February 7, 2008, all SP members were present. The Combong Resolution was approved amid heated debate, receiving seven (7) affirmative votes and six (6) negative votes. Following its passage, Piccio was replaced by Juanitas as Majority Floor Leader, and some Lakas-CMD members were divested of chairmanship or membership in the SP’s standing committees.

Complaint Filed and Relief Sought

To assail the legality of the Combong Resolution, the Lakas-CMD block—composed of petitioners Javier and Piccio, and additional members Rosie A. Dimamay, Errol T. Santillan, Edgar D. Denosta, and Carlos M. Pajacios—filed with the RTC a Complaint for Injunction with Urgent Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction.

They argued that because the Combong Resolution was treated as an “urgent matter,” its approval required an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members present, based on Section 62, paragraph (2), Rule XVI (Urgent Matters), Internal Rules of Procedure (IRP) of the SP. Given their theory that all fourteen (14) members were present, they contended that nine (9) affirmative votes were needed.

They further invoked Article 107(g) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code (LGC) and related DILG legal opinions to claim that, at the very least, the resolution required eight (8) affirmative votes as a simple majority. They asserted that all fourteen members, including Vice Governor Cadiao as presiding officer, attended the deliberations, and they claimed that the simple majority would be half of fourteen plus one. Their objective was for the court to order the Lakas-CMD members restored to their committee chairmanship or membership.

RTC Proceedings and Dismissal

In their Answer, respondents contended that the RTC lacked jurisdiction and that injunctive relief was no longer proper because the SP reorganization had already been a consummated act. They also maintained that the resolution was legally approved and that the Lakas-CMD bloc suffered no grave or irreparable damage from its passage.

On August 7, 2008, the RTC issued the assailed order dismissing the complaint. The RTC held that legislative rules, including those observed by the SP, were not permanent and that courts could not interfere with the SP’s internal affairs. It nonetheless considered the complaint based on the allegation that the Combong Resolution had been passed without the requisite majority, allegedly violating Article 107(g), IRR of the LGC.

The RTC applied Section 67, Rule XVIII (Voting), IRP of the SP, which provided that the presiding officer put the question and, absent other rules, “a majority of those voting, there being a quorum, shall decide,” with abstentions excluded and only the number of those who actually voted on each side counted in determining which side had the bigger number. On that basis, the RTC concluded that Vice Governor Cadiao’s presence should not be counted in determining the majority vote when no tie existed.

The RTC reasoned that when the Combong Resolution was passed, fourteen (14) were present—thirteen (13) SP members and Vice Governor Cadiao—and the thirteen SP members voted, with seven (7) voting for and six (6) against. Since a majority had already been obtained, the RTC found no need for the presiding officer’s vote as there was no tie to break. The RTC further emphasized that the LGC specified instances when two-thirds (2/3) votes were required, and nothing in the LGC addressed “urgent matters” in a way that would allow the IRP provision to impose a stricter standard than the LGC required. It added that plaintiffs suffered no grave or irreparable injury because they were not prevented from performing their duties as SP members and, in fact, were designated as chairmen or committee members in some instances.

Grounds Raised in the Supreme Court Petition

In the petition, petitioners ascribed several errors to the RTC: (one) that the RTC ruled that the required majority in a fourteen-member SP was seven under Section 67 of the IRP, allegedly contravening Article 107(g); (two) that the RTC excluded the vice governor from the base number in determining majority; (three) that the RTC failed to apply the two-thirds (2/3) vote requirement for “urgent matters” under Section 62, Rule XVI of the IRP; (four) that the RTC failed to consider pertinent DILG executive pronouncements or opinions; and (five) that the RTC failed to rule that the Combong Resolution violated provisions of the SP’s IRP concerning the designation and duties of the Majority Floor Leader.

Petitioners argued that Article 107(g), IRR of the LGC required “a majority of all the members present, there being a quorum,” while Section 67 of the IRP referred to “a majority of all the members actually voting, there being a quorum.” They maintained that the LGC governed and required eight votes in a fourteen-member SP. They also invoked the SP’s composition, stressing Section 467(a) of the LGC, and they relied on Gamboa, Jr. v. Aguirre, Jr. for the proposition that the Vice Governor is a member of the SP.

Petitioners further emphasized that the LGC gave the SP latitude to adopt internal rules of procedure, and they contended that the LGC’s silence on what constitutes “urgent matters” implied that the SP’s IRP could properly impose additional requirements for urgent matters. They invoked DILG Opinion No. 6, series of 2001, dated February 12, 2001, asserting that when all fourteen members, including the Vice Governor, attended, eight votes constituted a quorum. Finally, they argued that Juanitas could not validly be designated Majority Floor Leader without violating provisions on the position under Rule III of the IRP.

Respondents, for their part, argued that although the Vice Governor presided over the SP, he was not a regular member whose inclusion would always control voting computations. They also reiterated that the LGC enumerated instances when a two-thirds (2/3) vote was required and that “urgent matters” were not included. They stressed that what the law did not include it excluded, and that the designation of the Majority Floor Leader was subject to political shifts and alliances.

Disposition: Mootness and Public Interest Exception

The Supreme Court first addressed procedural issues. It held that the petition had become moot and academic because the contending parties’ terms of office had already ended in June 2010. Thus, no substantial relief could still be obtained that would not be rendered academic by the passage of time and the termination of the disputed tenure.

Nevertheless, the Court invoked an exception due to the public interest involved. It decided to address the first, second, and fourth issues raised for guidance of the bench, bar, and the public, while declining to resolve other issues.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Voting and the Vice Governor’s Role

The Court ruled that the Vice Governor, as Presiding Officer, should be counted for purposes of ascertaining a quorum. It also ruled that, in determining the number that constitutes the majority vote, the Vice Governor must be excluded. The Court explained that the presiding officer’s right to vote was contingent and arises only when there is a tie to break.

To support the quorum aspect and the understanding of the presiding officer’s place in the sanggunian’s composition, the Court relied on La Carlota City, Negros Occidental, et al. v. Atty. Rojo (interpreting a provision on the Sangguniang Panlungsod). It quoted the reasoning that the vice mayor (presiding officer) can vote only to break a tie and is thus part of the sanggunian’s “composition,” and that excluding the presiding officer from membership entirely would create an anomalous and absurd result.

However, the Court distinguished the presiding officer’s component position for quorum from the numeric voting level required to decide substantive matters. It emphasized the distinct nature of the presiding officer’s mandate and the statutory instruction in Section 49 of the LGC, which stated that the presiding officer “shall vote only to break a tie.” The Court reasoned that the Vice Governor, as presiding officer, embodied impartiality and did not represent a particular constituency or group in the way regular or ex-officio members do.

The Court concluded that including the presiding officer in the computation of the required voting level every time the SP votes would be counter-produc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms