G.R. No. 120193 - Malaluan vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120193)

Background of the Electoral Dispute

Luis Malaluan and Joseph Evangelista both ran for Municipal Mayor of Kidapawan in the 1992 elections. Initial proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers declared Evangelista the winner by a margin of 706 votes. Malaluan protested the election results, contesting votes from multiple precincts. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kidapawan ruled in favor of Malaluan with a margin of 154 votes and ordered Evangelista liable for various damages, including attorney’s fees and moral damages. Evangelista appealed this decision to the COMELEC, which reversed the RTC ruling, declared Evangelista the rightful winner, and ordered Malaluan to vacate office after serving temporarily under an execution pending appeal order.

Mootness of Election Contest Regarding the Right to Office

The term for the mayoralty contested expired on June 30, 1995, rendering the dispute over who was the rightful mayor moot and academic. Precedents such as Yorac v. Magalona establish that election protests become moot upon term expiration unless the decision would have practical value beyond the office’s occupancy. The Court acknowledged exceptions, referencing Atienza v. COMELEC, where monetary awards linked to the dispute maintained practical value despite mootness on the office holding. Thus, while the question of rightful occupancy was moot, the issue of damages remained justiciable.

Legal Basis for Awarding Damages in Election Contests

The Omnibus Election Code allows for actual or compensatory damages in election contests in accordance with law. COMELEC procedural rules require that claims for damages and attorney’s fees be pleaded and established by evidence. Under the Civil Code, actual damages require proof of pecuniary loss and must arise from breach of contract or quasi-contract, crimes, or tortious acts. Without contractual breach, tort, crime, or specific law, damages cannot be awarded. Additionally, attorney’s fees are generally not recoverable unless under circumstances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, such as cases of bad faith litigation or unfounded claims.

COMELEC’s Award of Damages and Its Reasoning

COMELEC’s First Division awarded damages to Evangelista comprising attorney’s fees, photocopying expenses, and unearned salary and emoluments totaling over half a million pesos, to be covered by the bond posted by Malaluan for execution pending appeal. COMELEC found Malaluan’s protest clearly unfounded and allegedly filed in bad faith to harass Evangelista. COMELEC also criticized the RTC’s order permitting execution pending appeal as grave abuse of discretion and ruled Evangelista had no right to salaries and emoluments during Malaluan’s temporary tenure.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: Absence of Legal Basis for Damages

The Supreme Court found no ground to hold Malaluan liable for damages as there was no contract, quasi-contract, tort, or crime committed to justify such an award. The Court remarked that an election protest cannot be deemed clearly unfounded merely because the trial court’s decision was adverse or erroneous; judicial rulings are their own acts, and errors do not imply malicious intent or bad faith. Consequently, COMELEC’s award of attorney’s fees, protest expenses, and actual damages lacked proper legal foundation.

Legitimacy of Execution Pending Appeal and Temporary Possession of Office

The Court upheld the legality of the RTC’s order allowing execution pending appeal, recognizing it as a judicial prerogative authorized by analogy under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The bond required under the Rules of Court was duly posted by petitioner. The Court emphasized that judicial decisions and proclamations by the Board of Canvassers both possess legal stature as bases for assuming office. Petitioner, under the trial court’s order, was a de facto officer entitled to the emoluments of the office during his incumbency. The Court rejected COMELEC’s characterization of Malaluan as a usurper, underscoring that assuming office under color of rightful election and court order confers de facto status.

Disapproval of Awarding Salaries and Emoluments as Damages

While the general rule, as established in Rodriguez v. Tan, permits an ousted official to retain salaries and emoluments earned in office during incumbency, COMELEC had sought to disallow these on the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120193)

Factual Background and Procedural History

The case involves an election contest for the position of Municipal Mayor of Kidapawan, North Cotabato, from the May 11, 1992 Synchronized National and Local Elections.
Private respondent Joseph Evangelista was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers with 10,498 votes versus petitioner Luis Malaluan’s 9,792 votes.
Petitioner filed an election protest on May 22, 1992, contesting 64 out of 181 precincts.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Malaluan as duly elected mayor with a plurality of 154 votes and ordered Evangelista liable for protest expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Evangelista appealed this decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on February 3, 1994.
Malaluan filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by the RTC on March 8, 1994, allowing Malaluan to assume office.
The COMELEC First Division reversed the RTC’s decision, ordering Malaluan to vacate office and declared Evangelista the rightful mayor.
The COMELEC en banc affirmed the First Division’s decision.
Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.
Notably, the term of office expired on June 30, 1995, rendering the question of entitlement to office moot and academic.

Issue of Mootness and Practical Value of Decision

The expiration of the term of office has rendered the issue of rightful occupation moot.
Citing prior jurisprudence (Yorac v. Magalona), election contests become moot post-term expiration, typically warranting dismissal.
However, as recognized in Atienza v. COMELEC, if the adjudication has practical value, such as in awarding damages, the case may proceed despite mootness.
The award of actual damages and attorney’s fees in this case gave the petition a continuing practical importance even after expiration of the term.

Award of Actual Damages by COMELEC

The COMELEC awarded “actual damages” en masse to Evangelista, including attorney’s fees, xerox expenses, and unearned salary and emoluments from March 1994 to April 1995.
These damages were to be collected from petitioner’s P500,000 bond posted for execution pending appeal if petitioner failed to pay.
The award was grounded on the COMELEC’s finding that the election protest was clearly unfounded and filed in bad faith.
The COMELEC specifically found grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order granting execution pending appeal and characterized Malaluan’s assumption of office as illegal and usurpatory.

Legal Basis and Requirements for Awarding Damages in Election Contests

Under Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code, actual or compensatory damages may be awarded in election contests “in accordance with law.”
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure condition awarding damages on claims being included in pleadings and supported by evidence.
Civil Code provisions govern actual damages: only pecuniary loss duly proved, arising from breach of contract/quasi-contract or from torts/crimes, may be compensated.
Absent a breach of duty or specific law authorizing recovery, damages for electio