Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

CITY OF PASIG, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COMMISSION The Court ruled that the pending civil case on boundary dispute presents a prejudicial
ON ELECTIONS and THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF question which must first be decided before the creation of the proposed barangays.
RIZAL, respondents While the City of Pasig argues that there is no prejudicial question since the same
G.R. No. 125646. September 10, 1999 contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not come into playwhere
both cases are civil, as in the instant case, still in the interest of good order, the Court
MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, petitioner, vs. can suspend action on one case pending the final outcome of another case closely
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CITY OF PASIG, respondent interrelated or linked to the first.
G.R. No. 128663. September 10, 1999
The decision on whose territorial jurisdiction the areas fall has material bearing to the
Facts: creation of the proposed Barangays. A requisite for the creation of a barangay is
properly identified territorial jurisdiction for these define the limits of the exerciseof
the governmental powers of the LGU. Beyond these limits, its acts are ultra vires
On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that they be (beyond the legal capacity). Moreover, considering the expenses entailed in the holding
segregated from its mother Barangays and converted into a separate one, the City of plebiscites, it is far more prudent to hold in abeyance the conduct of the same until
Council of Pasig passed and approved an ordinance, creating Barangay Karangalan the resolution of the boundary dispute.
scheduling the plebiscite on the creation of said barangay on June 22, 1996. Upon
learning of the ordinance, the Municipality of Cainta filed a petition on June 19, 1996
to the Commission on Elections to suspend or cancel the scheduled plebiscite. In the case of Barangay Napico, the Court does not agree that the petition of the
According to the Municipality of Cainta, the proposed barangay involve areas included Municipality of Cainta has been rendered moot and academic because the plebiscite
in the pending case before the RTC Antipolo Rizal, Br. 74 for settlement was already held. The issues raised are still pending and must first be resolved.
of boundary dispute, hence the plebiscite should be suspended or cancelled until after Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in
the said case shall have been finally decided by the court. abeyance; and the plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 ratifying the creation of Barangay
Napico should be annulled and set aside, and any plebiscite thereto is hold in abeyance
pending final resolution of the boundary dispute.
Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig similarly issued another ordinance,
creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City. Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March
15, 1997. Again the Municipality of Cainta filed another petition on March 12, 1997 to
suspend or cancel the plebiscite on the same ground as for the proposed creation of
Barangay Karangalan.

The COMELEC ordered the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan to be


held in abeyance until the boundary dispute is settled because it presents a prejudicial
question which must first be decided. The City of Pasig filed the petition (G.R. No.
125646) to the Supreme Court, arguing that there is no prejudicial question since the
same contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not come into play where
both cases are civil, as in the instant case.

In the case of Barangay Napico, the COMELEC dismissed the petition for being moot
because the plebiscite was already held and the creation ratified and approved by the
residents. Hence, the Municipality of Cainta filed a petition (G.R. No. 128663) to the
Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays Karangalan and
Napico should be suspended or cancelled in view of the
pending boundarydispute between the two local governments.

Ruling:

Вам также может понравиться