Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

89604 April 20, 1990 ROQUE FLORES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS , NO ELITO RAPISORA, respondents. Felix B. Claustro for petitioner. Romeo B. Astudillo for private respondent.

CRU!, J.: Petitioner Roque Flores was proclai ed b! the board of canvassers as havin" received the hi"hest nu ber of votes for kagawad in the elections held on #$ March %&$&, in Baran"a! Poblacion, 'a!u , Abra, and thus beca e punong barangay in accordance with (ection ) of Rep. Act No. **+&, providin" in part as follows , (ec. ). 'here shall be a sangguniang barangay in ever! dul! constituted baran"a! which shall be the le"islative bod! and shall be co posed of seven -+. kagawads to be elected b! the re"istered voters of the baran"a!. 'he candidate who obtains the hi"hest nu ber of votes shall be the punong barangay . . . . /owever, his election was protested b! Nobelito Rapisora, herein private respondent, who placed second in the election with 0*1 votes, or one vote less than the petitioner. 'he Municipal Circuit 'rial Court of 'a!u , Abra, sustained Rapisora and installed hi as punong barangay in place of the petitioner after deductin" two votes as stra! fro the latter2s total. 1 Flores appealed to the Re"ional 'rial Court of Abra, which affir ed the challen"ed decision in toto. 3ud"e Francisco 4. 5illarta, 3r. a"reed that the four votes cast for 6Flores6 onl!, without an! distin"uishin" first na e or initial, should all have been considered invalid instead of bein" divided equall! between the petitioner and Anastacio Flores, another candidate for kagawad. 'he 7ud"e held that the ori"inal total credited to the petitioner was correctl! reduced b! #, to 0*#, de otin" hi to second place. 2 'he petitioner then went to the Co ission on Elections, but his appeal was dis issed on the "round that the public respondent had no power to review the decision of the

re"ional trial court. 'his rulin", e bodied in its resolution dated 1 Au"ust %&$&, " was presu abl! based on (ection & of Rep. Act No. **+&, which was quoted therein in full as follows8 (ec. &. A sworn petition contestin" the election of a baran"a! official a! be filed with the proper unicipal or etropolitan trial court b! an! candidate who has dul! filed a certificate of candidac! and has been voted for a baran"a! office within ten -%9. da!s after the procla ation of the result of the election. 'he trial court shall decide the election protest within -19. da!s after the filin" thereof. 'he decision of the unicipal or etropolitan trial court a! be appealed within ten -%9. da!s fro receipt of a cop! thereof b! the a""rieved part! to the re"ional trial court which shall decide the issue within thirt! -19. da!s fro receipt of the appeal and whose decision on questions of fact shall be final and non:appealable. For purposes of the baran"a! elections, no pre:procla ation cases shall be allowed. ;n this petition for certiorari, the Co ission on Elections is faulted for not ta<in" co"ni=ance of the petitioner2s appeal and for not rulin" that all the four questioned votes should have been credited to hi under the equit! of the incu bent rule in (ection #%%-#. of the 4 nibus Election Code. 'he Co ission on Elections was obviousl! of the opinion that it could not entertain the petitioner2s appeal because of the provision in Rep. Act No. **+& that the decision of the re"ional trial court in a protest appealed to it fro the unicipal trial court in baran"a! elections 6on questions of fact shall be final and non:appealable.6 >hile supportin" the dis issal of the appeal, the (olicitor ?eneral 7ustifies this action on an entirel! different and ore si"nificant "round, to wit, Article ;@:C, (ection #-#. of the Constitution, providin" that the Co ission on Elections shall8 -#. EAercise exclusive ori"inal 7urisdiction over all contests relatin" to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective re"ional, provincial, and cit! officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involvin" elective unicipal officials decided b! trial courts of "eneral 7urisdiction, or involvin"elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. -E phasis supplied.. Becisions, final orders, or rulin"s of the Co ission on election contests involvin" elective unicipal and baran"a! offices shall be final, eAecutor!, and not appealable. /is sub ission is that unicipal or etropolitan courts bein" courts of li ited 7urisdiction, their decisions in baran"a! election contests are sub7ect to the eAclusive appellate 7urisdiction of the Co ission on Elections under the afore:quoted section. /ence, the decision rendered b! the Municipal Circuit 'rial Court of 'a!u , Abra,

should have been appealed directl! to the Co Re"ional 'rial Court of Abra.

ission on Elections and not to the

;t is recalled that in the case of Cuison v. ?arcia, 4 respondent ?arcia2s certificate of candidac! was declared invalid b! the Co ission on Elections for non:co pliance with the statutor! require ents. >hat he did was appeal to the court of first instance, which held that the certificate was erel! defective but not alto"ether null and void. ?arcia continued his candidac! on the stren"th of this rulin" and was subsequentl! proclai ed elected, thereafter assu in" office as unicipal a!or. ;n sustainin" the quo warranto petition filed a"ainst hi b! Cuison, this Court declared that all the votes cast for ?arcia should have been re7ected as stra! because he did not have a valid certificate of candidac!. 'he action of the Co ission on Elections should have been appealed not to the court of first instance but to the (upre e Court as required b! the %&1) Constitution. (ince this was not done, the resolution of the Co ission on Elections re7ectin" ?arcia2s certificate re ained valid on the date of the election and rendered all votes cast for hi as stra!. 'he doctrine in that case, althou"h laid down under the %&1) Constitution, is still controllin" under the present charter as the interpretation b! this Court of Article ;@:C, (ection #-#.. Accordin"l!, (ection & of Rep. Act No. **+&, insofar as it provides that the decision of the unicipal or etropolitan court in a baran"a! election case should be appealed to the re"ional trial court, ust be declared unconstitutional. >e a<e this declaration even if the law has not been squarel! and properl! challen"ed b! the petitioner. 4rdinaril!, the Court requires co pliance with the requisites of a 7udicial inquir! into a constitutional question. # ;n the case at bar, however, we feel there is no point in waitin" to resolve the issue now alread! before us until it is raised anew, probabl! onl! in the neAt baran"a! elections. 'he ti e to resolve it is now, before such elections. >e shall therefore disre"ard the technical obstacles in the case at bar so that the flaw in Rep. Act No. **+& a! be brou"ht to the attention of Con"ress and the constitutional defect in (ection & a! be corrected. ;n ta<in" this step, the Court does not disre"ard the fact that the petitioner was onl! actin" in accordance with the said law when he appealed the decision of the Municipal Circuit 'rial Court of 'a!u to the Re"ional 'rial Court of Abra. 'hat is what the statute specificall! directed in its (ection & which, at the ti e the appeal was ade, was considered constitutional. 'he petitioner had a li"ht to rel! on its presu ed validit! as ever!one apparentl! did. Even the Con"ress and the EAecutive were satisfied that the easure was constitutional when the! separatel! approved it after careful stud!. ;ndeed, no challen"e to its validit! had been lod"ed or even hinted , not even b! the public respondent , as to su""est to the petitioner that he was followin" the wron" procedure. ;n fairness to hi therefore, we shall consider his appeal to the Co ission on Elections as havin" been ade directl! fro the Municipal Circuit 'rial Court of 'a!u , Abra, disre"ardin" the detour to the Re"ional 'rial Court.

Accordin"l!, we hold that the petitioner2s appeal was validl! ade to the Co ission on Elections under its 6eAclusive appellate 7urisdiction over all contests. . . involvin" elective baran"a! officials decided b! trial courts of li ited 7urisdiction.6 ;ts decision was in turn also properl! elevated to us pursuant to Article ;@:A, (ection +, of the Constitution, statin" that 6unless otherwise provided b! this Constitution or b! law, an! decision, order or rulin" of each Co ission a! be brou"ht to the (upre e Court on certiorari b! the a""rieved part! within thirt! da!s fro receipt of a cop! thereof.6 4bviousl!, the provision of Article ;@:C, (ection #-#. of the Constitution that 6decisions, final orders, or rulin"s of the Co ission on election contests involvin" elective unicipal and baran"a! offices shall be final, eAecutor!, and not appealable6 applies onl! to questions of fact and not of law. 'hat provision was not intended to divest the (upre e Court of its authorit! to resolve questions of law as inherent in the 7udicial power conferred upon it b! the Constitution. 6 >e eschew a literal readin" of that provision that would contradict such authorit!. 'he issue the petitioner was raisin" was one of law, vi ., whether he was entitled to the benefits of the equit!:of:the:incu bent rule, and so sub7ect to our review. 'his issue was not resolved b! the public respondent because it apparentl! believed itself to be without appellate 7urisdiction over the decision of the Re"ional 'rial Court of Abra. Considerin" that the public respondent has alread! anifested its position on this issue, as will appear presentl!, the Court will now rule upon it directl! instead of adoptin" the round:about wa! of re andin" the case to the Co ission on Elections before its decision is elevated to this Court. ; ple entin" Rep. Act No. **+&, the Co ission on Elections pro ul"ated Resolution No. #9##:A providin" in (ection %*-1. thereof that8 ;ncu bent Baran"a! Captains, whether elected, appointed or desi"nated shall be dee ed resi"ned as such upon the filin" of their certificates of candidac! for the office of 6Da"awad,6 which is another office, for the March #$, %&$& baran"a! election. 'his was the reason wh! the Municipal Circuit 'rial Court of 'a!u , Abra, held that the four questioned votes cast for Flores could not be credited to either Roque Flores or Anastacio Flores and should have been re"arded as stra! under (ection #%%-%. $ of the 4 nibus Election Code. Re7ectin" the petitioner2s clai , the court held that Roque Flores was not entitled to an! of the four contested votes because he was not incu bent as punong barangay -or baran"a! captain, as the office was for erl! called. on the date of the election. 'he petitioner insists on the application to hi pertinentl! that8 of (ection #%%-#. of the Code, statin"

#. . . . ;f there are two or ore candidates with the sa e full na e, first na e or surna e and one of the is the incu bent, and on the ballot is

written onl! such full na e, first na e or surna e, the vote shall be counted in favor of the incu bent. because he should not have been considered resi"ned but continued to be entitled to the office of punong barangay under (ection $ of Rep. Act No. **+&, providin" as follows8 (ec. $. ;ncu bent elective officials runnin" for the sa e office shall not be considered resi"ned upon the filin" of then, certificates of candidac!. 'he! shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been elected and qualified. 'he petitioner contends that the afore:quoted ad inistrative re"ulation is inofficious because the forfeiture prescribed is not authori=ed b! the statute itself and be!ond the intentions of the le"islature. Moreover, the enforce ent of the rule would lead to discri ination a"ainst the punong barangay and in favor of the otherkagawads, who, unli<e hi , could re ain in office while runnin" for re:election and, additionall!, benefit fro the equit!:of:the:incu bent rule. Alternativel!, the petitioner ar"ues that, assu in" the re"ulation to be valid he was nonetheless basicall! also akagawad as he was a e ber of the sangguniang barangay li<e the other siA council en elected with hi in %&$#. ;n fact, (ection ) of the Rep. Act No. **+& also spea<s of seven kagawads, the fore ost of who shall a"ain be the punong barangay. /e concludes that he should thus be re"arded as runnin" for the sa e office , and therefore not considered resi"ned , when he filed his certificate of candidac! for kagawad. 'he Court does not a"ree. ;t see s to us that the challen"ed resolution quite clearl! eApresses the andate of the above:quoted (ection $ that all incu bent elected officials should not be considered resi"ned upon the filin" of their certificates of candidac! as lon" as the! were runnin" for the sa e position. 'he purpose of the resolution was erel! to i ple ent this intention, which was clearl! applicable not onl! to the ordinar! e bers of the sangguniang barangay but also to the punon" baran"a!. As for the questioned authorit!, this is found in (ection )# of the 4 nibus Election Code, which e powers the public respondent to 6pro ul"ate rules and re"ulations i ple entin" the provisions of this Code or other laws which the Co ission is required to enforce and ad inister. . . .6 'he 7ustification "iven b! the resolution is that the position of punong barangay is different fro that of kagawad, as in fact it is. 'here should be no question that the punon" baran"a! is an essentiall! eAecutive officer, as the enu eration of his functions in (ection $$ of the Cocal ?overn ent Code will readil! show, unli<e the <a"awad, who is vested with ainl! le"islative functions -althou"h he does assist the punong

barangay in the ad inistration of the baran"a!.. Ender Rep. Act No. **+&, the person who wins the hi"hest nu ber of votes as a kagawadbeco es b! operation of law the punong barangay, or the eAecutive of the political unit. ;n the particular case of the petitioner, it should be noted that he was in fact not even elected in %&$# as one of the siA council en but separatel! as the baran"a! captain. /e was thus correctl! dee ed resi"ned upon his filin" of a certificate of candidac! for kagawad in %&$&, as this was not the position he was holdin", or was incu bent in, at the ti e he filed such certificate. ;t is worth stressin" that under the ori"inal procedure followed in the %&$# baran"a! elections, the petitioner was elected baran"a! captain directl! b! the voters, separatel! fro the candidates runnin" for ere e bership in the sangguniang barangay. 'he offices of the baran"a! captain and council en were both open to the candidates, but the! could run onl! for one or the other position and not si ultaneousl! for both. B! contrast, the candidate under the present law a! aspire for bot! offices, but can run onl! for one, to wit, that of kagawad. >hile ca pai"nin" for this position, he a! hope and actuall! strive to win the hi"hest nu ber of votes as this would auto aticall! a<e hi the punong barangay. ;n this sense, it a! be said that he is a candidate for both offices. (trictl! spea<in", however, the onl! office for which he a! run , and for which a certificate of candidac! a! be ad itted , is that of kagawad. ;t follows that the petitioner cannot insist that he was runnin" not for kagawad onl! but ulti atel! also for punong barangay in the #$ March %&$& election. ;n fact, his certificate of candidac! was for kagawad and not for punong barangay. As the basic position bein" disputed in the baran"a! election was that of <a"awad, that of punong barangay bein" conferred onl! b! operation of law on the candidate placin" first, the petitioner had to forfeit his position of punong barangay, which he was holdin" when he presented his candidac! for kagawad. Consequentl!, he cannot be credited with the four contested votes for Flores on the erroneous "round that he was still incu bent as punong barangay on the da! of the election. 'he petitioner ar"ues that he could not have run for reelection as punong barangay because the office was no lon"er sub7ect to separate or even direct election b! the voters. 'hat a! be so, but this ar"u ent "oes to the wisdo of the law, not its validit!, and is better addressed to the le"islature. Fro the strictl! le"al viewpoint, the statute does not offend the equal protection clause, as there are, to repeat, substantial distinctions between the offices of punong barangay and kagawad. Precisel! , the reason for divestin" the punong barangay of his position was to place hi on the sa e footin" as the other candidates b! re ovin" the advanta"es he would en7o! if he were to continue as punong barangay while runnin" for kagawad. ;n su , we hold that (ection & of Rep. Act No. **+& is constitutionall! defective and ust be struc< down, but the challen"ed resolution ust be sustained as a reasonable and valid i ple entation of the said statute. 'he petitioner was no lon"er the incu bent punong barangay on election da! and so was not entitled to the benefits of the equit!:of:the:incu bent rule. 'he consequence is that the four votes clai ed b! hi

were correctl! considered stra!, a<in" the private respondent the punong barangay of Poblacion, 'a!u , Abra, for havin" received the hi"hest nu ber of votes for kagawad. ;t re ains to stress that althou"h the elections involved herein pertain to the lowest level of our political or"ani=ation, this fact has not deterred the hi"hest tribunal fro ta<in" co"ni=ance of this case and discussin" it at len"th in this opinion. 'his onl! "oes to show that as lon" as a constitutional issue is at sta<e, even the barangayand its officers, for all their hu ilit! in the political hierarch!, deserve and will "et the full attention of this Court. >/EREF4RE, the petition is B;(M;((EB. 3ud" ent is hereb! rendered8 %. Beclarin" (ection & of Rep. Act No. **+& ENC4N(';'E';4NAC insofar as it provides that baran"a! election contests decided b! the unicipal or etropolitan trial court shall be appealable to the re"ional trial courtF #. Beclarin" valid (ection %*-1. of Co . Res. No. #9##:A dated 3anuar! ), %&$&F and 1. Beclarin" private respondent Nobelito Rapisora the dul! elected punong barangay of Poblacion, 'a!u , Abra. No pronounce ent as to costs. (4 4RBEREB. "arvasa# $elencio%&errera# 'utierre # (r.# )aras# Feliciano# 'ancayco# )adilla# Bidin# *armiento# Cortes# 'ri+o%Aquino# $edialdea and Regalado ((.# concur. Fernan# C.(.# is on leave.

Foo%&o%'( % Rollo, p. %+. # AnneA 6A:l,6 ,bid., pp. %+:%&. 1 AnneA 6A,6 ,d., pp. %0:%*. 0 ?.R. No. C:%9&%*, Ma! #9, %&)+. ) -a. 'here ust be an actual case or controvers!F -b. 'he question of constitutionalit! ust be raised b! the proper part!F -c. 'he constitutional question ust be raised at the earliest possible opportunit!F and -d. 'he

decision of the constitutional question deter ination of the case itself.

ust be necessar! to the

* Ceon"son v. CA, 0& (CRA #%#F (cott v. ;ncion", *$ (CRA 0+1F Medalla v. (a!o, %91 (CRA )$+. + >here onl! the first na e of a candidate or onl! his surna e is written, the vote for such candidate is valid if there is no other candidate with the sa e first na e or surna e for the sa e office.