Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr. v. Jose De Venecia, Roberto P. Nazareno, and Ma Victoria L.

Locsin
G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002

Facts:
Petitioner Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr. was mayor of Ormoc City, while respondent Ma. Victoria L. Locsin was the
incumbent representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. Both were candidates in the 14 May 2001
elections for the position of representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte.

A registered voter of Kananga, Leyte filed with COMELEC a petition for disqualification against petitioner
alleging that petitioner used the equipments and vehicles owned by the city government of Ormoc to extract,
haul, and distribute gravel and sand to the residents of Kananga and Matag-ob, Leyte for the purpose of
inducing, influencing or corrupting them to vote for him.

The case was assigned to the COMELECs Second Division, which issued an order delegating the hearing and
reception of evidence on the disqualification case to the Office of the Regional Director of Region VIII. The
same division sent notice to the petitioner through telegram.

At the time of the elections, the Regional Election Director had yet to hear the case. Eventually, petitioner was
included in the list of candidates and voted for; initial results showed that petitioner was the winning
candidate.

Respondent filed a Most Urgent Motion to Suspend Proclamation of Respondent with the COMELEC Second
Division. A copy was allegedly served on the petitioner by registered mail but no registry receipt was attached
thereto. She also filed a second motion, a copy of which was sent to petitioner with the corresponding registry
receipt; however, theres no indication when petitioner received the motion.

The COMELEC Second Division issued an Ex-Parte Order directing the (a) Provincial Board of Canvassers of
Leyte to suspend the proclamation of the petitioner and (b) the Regional Election Director to speed up the
reception of evidence and to forward immediately the complete records together with its recommendation to
the office of the Clerk of the Commission. At this time, petitioner has yet to be summoned to answer the
petition for disqualification.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension alleging that (a) he did not receive a copy of the Motion to
Suspend his Proclamation, hence he was denied of his right to rebut and refute the allegations against him; (b)
he did not receive a copy of the summons on the petition for disqualification; and (c) he received the telegraph
order of the COMELEC Second Division suspending his proclamation four days after it was sent to him. Said
motion was not resolved; instead, the COMELEC Second Division promulgated its Resolution that found the
petitioner guilty of indirect solicitation of votes and ordered his disqualification. The same order declared the
votes cast in favor of the petitioner as stray votes and directed the immediate proclamation of the candidate
who garnered the highest number of votes. As a result, respondent was declared as having the highest number
of votes and she was proclaimed, took her oath of office, and assumed office as the duly elected
representative of the 4th district of Leyte. A copy of the said Resolution was sent by fax to petitioners counsel.

The petitioner filed with the COMELEC en banc a Motion for Reconsideration and a petition for declaration of
nullity of proclamation. Said motion was granted and the COMELEC en banc (a) reversed the resolution of the
Second Division and (b) declared the proclamation of respondent null and void. Respondent did not appeal
from this decision.

Eventually, petitioner was proclaimed the duly-elected representative of the 4th district of Leyte. Petitioner
took his oath of office before the Executive Judge of the Ormoc Regional Trial Court. Petitioner wrote a letter-
appeal to the House of Representatives through respondent De Venecia, but no action was taken by the latter.
Hence, this petition.

Issues:
WON the proclamation of respondent Locsin is valid.
WON the proclamation of respondent Locsin directed the COMELEC en banc of jurisdiction to review its
validity.

Page 1 of 4
WON it is the ministerial duty of the public respondents to recognize the petitioner as the legally elected
representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte.

Held:
1. NO. First, the petitioner was denied due process during the entire proceedings leading to the proclamation
of respondent Locsin. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. When a party is deprived of
that basic fairness, any decision by any tribunal in prejudice of his rights is void.

Second, the votes cast in favor of the petitioner cannot be considered stray and respondent cannot be
validly proclaimed on that basis.

The order of disqualification is not yet final, hence the votes cast in favor of the petitioner cannot be
considered stray. Considering the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC Second Division
gravely abused its discretion in ordering the immediate disqualification of the petitioner and ordering the
exclusion of the votes cast in his favor.

Also, Respondent Lim, as a mere second placer, cannot be proclaimed. It is a settled doctrine that the
candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning
candidate is disqualified. In every election, the peoples choice is the paramount consideration and their
expressed will must at all times be given effect. When the majority speaks and elects into office a candidate by
giving him the highest number of votes cast in the election for the office, no one can be declared elected in his
place.

2. NO. The petitioner seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order of the Second Division
suspending his proclamation and disqualifying him; hence, the COMELEC en banc was not divested of its
jurisdiction to review the validity of the said Order of the Second Division. The said order was yet enforceable
as it has not attained finality; thus, it cannot be used as the basis for the assumption in office of the
respondent as the duly elected Representative of the 4th Legislative district of Leyte. For these reasons, the
HRET cannot assume jurisdiction over the matter.

3. YES. If the Law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty
shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the
discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment. In the case, the
administration of oath and the registration of the petitioner in the Roll of Members of the House of
Representatives is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the public respondents because of the
following reasons: the petitioner garnered the highest number of votes; the order of the COMELEC Second
Division, which ordered the proclamation of Respondent Locsin was set aside by the COMELEC en banc which
ordered the proclamation of the petitioner; said decision by the COMELEC en banc was not challenged by the
respondent and has become final and executory.

Codilla vs. de Venecia (other case digest)

If the validity of the proclamation is the core issue of the disqualification case, the proclamation of the
candidate cannot divest Comelec en banc of its jurisdiction to review its validity
Ministerial duty of the House to administer oath of office to the winning candidate

FACTS:

Codilla, then sitting as Mayor of Ormoc City, and Locsin, the incumbent Representative of the 4th legislative
district of Leyte, were candidates for the position of Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. A
petition for disqualification was filed against Codilla for violating Sec. 68(a) of the Omnibus Election Code,
alleging that he used the equipment and vehicles owned by the City Government of Ormoc to extract, haul and
distribute gravel and sand to the residents of Kananga and Matag-ob, Leyte, for the purpose of inducing,
influencing or corrupting them to vote for him.

Page 2 of 4
At the time of the elections on May 14, 2001, the disqualification case was still pending so Codillas name
remained in the list of candidates and was voted for. In fact, he garnered the highest number of votes.
However, his proclamation as winner was suspended by order of the Comelec. After hearing of his
disqualification case, he was found guilty and ordered disqualified.

Codillas votes being considered stray, Locsin was thus proclaimed as the duly elected Representative and
subsequently took her oath of office. Codilla then filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration with the Comelec
and also sought the annulment of Locsins proclamation.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Comelec has jurisdiction to annul the proclamation of a Representative
Whether or not it is a ministerial duty of the House to recognize Codilla as the legally elected Representative
RULING:

First. The validity of the respondents proclamation was a core issue in the Motion for Reconsideration
seasonably filed by the petitioner.

xxx

Since the petitioner seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Second Division
suspending hisproclamation and disqualifying him, the COMELEC en banc was not divested of its jurisdiction to
review the validity of the said Order of the Second Division. The said Order of the Second Division was yet
unenforceable as it has not attained finality; the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration suspends its
execution. It cannot, thus, be used as the basis for the assumption in office of the respondent as the duly
elected Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte.

Second. It is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) which has no jurisdiction in the instant
case.

xxx

(a)The issue on the validity of the Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division has not yet been resolved by the
COMELEC en banc.

To stress again, at the time of the proclamation of respondent Locsin, the validity of the Resolution of the
COMELEC Second Division was seasonably challenged by the petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration. The
issue was still within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc to resolve. Hence, the HRET cannot
assume jurisdiction over the matter.

In Puzon vs. Cua, even the HRET ruled that the doctrinal ruling that once a proclamation has been made and a
candidate-elect has assumed office, it is this Tribunal that has jurisdiction over an election contest involving
members of the House of Representatives, could not have been immediately applicable due to the issue
regarding the validity of the very COMELEC pronouncements themselves. This is because the HRET has no
jurisdiction to review resolutions or decisions of the COMELEC, whether issued by a division or en banc.

(b)The instant case does not involve the election and qualification of respondent Locsin.

A petition for quo warranto may be filed only on the grounds of ineligibility and disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines. In the case at bar, neither the eligibility of the respondent Locsin nor her loyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines is in question. There is no issue that she was qualified to run, and if she won, to
assume office.
A petition for quo warranto in the HRET is directed against one who has been duly elected and proclaimed for
having obtained the highest number of votes but whose eligibility is in question at the time of
such proclamation. It is evident that respondent Locsin cannot be the subject of quo warranto proceeding in
the HRET. She lost the elections to the petitioner by a wide margin. Her proclamation was a patent nullity. Her
premature assumption to office as Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte was void from the
beginning. It is the height of absurdity for the respondent, as a loser, to tell petitioner Codilla, Sr., the winner,
to unseat her via a quo warranto proceeding.

Page 3 of 4
Ministerial duty of the House to administer the oath of office of a winning but nevertheless unproclaimed
candidate

Under Rule 65, section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, any person may file a verified petition for
mandamus when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully
excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is
no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. For a petition for mandamus to
prosper, it must be shown that the subject of the petition for mandamus is a ministerial act or duty, and not
purely discretionary on the part of the board, officer or person, and that the petitioner has a well-defined,
clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.

The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is
one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide
how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty
is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or
judgment.

In the case at bar, the administration of oath and the registration of the petitioner in the Roll of Members of
the House of Representatives representing the 4th legislative district of Leyte is no longer a matter of
discretion on the part of the public respondents. The facts are settled and beyond dispute: petitioner garnered
71,350 votes as against respondent Locsin who only got 53, 447 votes in the May 14, 2001 elections. The
COMELEC Second Division initially ordered theproclamation of respondent Locsin; on Motion for
Reconsideration the COMELEC en banc set aside the order of its Second Division and ordered
the proclamation of the petitioner. The Decision of the COMELEC en banc has not been challenged before this
Court by respondent Locsin and said Decision has become final and executory.

In sum, the issue of who is the rightful Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte has been finally
settled by the COMELEC en banc, the constitutional body with jurisdiction on the matter. The rule of
law demands that its Decision be obeyed by all officials of the land. There is no alternative to the rule of
law except the reign of chaos and confusion.

Page 4 of 4