Monroy v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roberto Monroy, the incumbent Mayor of Navotas, Rizal, filed a certificate of candidacy for representative of the first district of Rizal. Three days later, he withdrew his certificate of candidacy, which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) approved. Respondent Felipe del Rosario, the vice-mayor, then took his oath of office as municipal mayor, asserting that Monroy had forfeited his position upon filing the certificate of candidacy. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal ruled that Monroy had ceased to be mayor upon filing the certificate of candidacy, that del Rosario became mayor upon assuming office, and ordered Monroy to reimburse del Rosario for salaries and pay moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CFI ruling in toto, except for the award of moral damages, which it eliminated. Monroy then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to review the ruling of the Court of Appeals, arguing that both the CFI and CA had no jurisdiction to review a resolution of the Commission on Elections and that the forfeiture of his office was not effective due to the withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy.
Issue(s)
Whether the courts below erred in reviewing a resolution of the Commission on Elections. Whether the filing of a certificate of candidacy for another office results in automatic and permanent forfeiture of the incumbent office. Whether the withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy nullifies the forfeiture of the incumbent office. Whether petitioner was entitled to reimbursement for salaries received by respondent del Rosario as de facto mayor.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The Court held that the forfeiture of office is automatic and permanent upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office, and this effect is not nullified by a subsequent withdrawal. The rightful incumbent is entitled to recover salaries received by a de facto officer during the period of wrongful tenure.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the courts over COMELEC resolutions: The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections is limited to administrative questions affecting the conduct of elections. The dispute in this case, concerning whether petitioner had forfeited his position as municipal mayor, was a purely legal question with no bearing on the conduct of the election for Congressman. Therefore, it properly fell within the cognizance of the regular courts, not the COMELEC. On the automatic and permanent forfeiture of office: The Court reiterated the principle that Section 27 of the Revised Election Code makes the forfeiture of office automatic and permanent from the moment of filing a certificate of candidacy for another office. This forfeiture is effective immediately and irrevocably, and nothing short of a new election or appointment can restore the ousted official to their position. The law does not make the forfeiture dependent upon future contingencies. On the effect of withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy: The Supreme Court ruled that the withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy does not nullify the forfeiture of the incumbent office. Once the certificate is filed, the permanent legal effects produced thereby remain, even if the certificate itself is subsequently withdrawn. The filing of the certificate of candidacy, with petitioner's knowledge and consent, produced the forfeiture, and this legal effect persisted despite the withdrawal. On the recovery of salaries by the rightful incumbent: The Court applied the general rule that the rightful incumbent of a public office may recover from an officer de facto the salary received by the latter during the time of his wrongful tenure. The case of Rodriguez v. Tan was distinguished because it involved a proclaimed senator ousted in an election contest, where the de facto officer could retain emoluments. In this case, the dispute was about forfeiture of office and claim thereto by the vice-mayor due to the operation of election law, making the general rule applicable. The de facto officer takes the salaries at his risk and must account to the de jure officer.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a certificate of candidacy for an office other than the one held by an elective official results in automatic and permanent forfeiture of the incumbent office from the moment of filing, and such forfeiture is not nullified by a subsequent withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy. The rightful incumbent may recover salaries received by a de facto officer during the period of wrongful tenure.