Amelita G.

Labajo

Administrative Law
Saturday
08:00-11:00

a.m
Title of the Case: Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr. vs. Hon. Jose de Venecia
Citation: G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002
Facts:
Petitioner Codilla garnered the highest votes in the election for representative in the
4th district of Leyte as against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a
disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved for the suspension of
petitioners proclamation on the ground that Codilla solicited votes during election.
By virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioners proclamation was suspended.
Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and
consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner. Upon
motion by petitioner, the resolution was however reversed and a new resolution
declared respondents proclamation as null and void. Respondent made his defiance
and disobedience to subsequent resolution publicly known while petitioner asserted
his right to the office he won.
Issues:
1. Whether or not respondents proclamation was valid.
2. Whether or not the Comelec has jurisdiction in the instant case.
3. Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.
Ruling:
1. No, the respondents proclamation was invalid. His proclamation was
premature given that the case against petitioner had not yet been disposed
of with finality. In fact, it was subsequently found that the disqualification of
the petitioner was null and void for being violative of due process and for
want of substantial factual basis. Furthermore, respondent, as second placer,
could not take the seat in office since he did not represent the electorates
choice.
2. Yes, the COMELEC still has jurisdiction over the case. Since the validity of
respondents proclamation had been assailed by petitioner before the
Comelec and that the Comelec was yet to resolve it, it cannot be said that the
order disqualifying petitioner had become final. Thus Comelec continued to
exercise jurisdiction over the case pending finality. The House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review
resolutions or decisions of the Comelec. A petition for quo warranto must also
fail since respondents eligibility was not the issue.
3. The facts had been settled by the COMELEC en banc, the constitutional body
with jurisdiction on the matter, that petitioner won. The rule of law demands
that its (Comelecs) Decision be obeyed by all officials of the land. Such duty
is ministerial. Petitioner had the right to the office which merits recognition
regardless of personal judgment or opinion.