Flores v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Roque Flores was proclaimed the winner for kagawad in the March 28, 1989 barangay elections in Poblacion, Tayum, Abra, which, by operation of law, would make him punong barangay. However, private respondent Nobelito Rapisora, who placed second, protested the election results. The core of the dispute revolved around the proper allocation of four votes cast for "Flores" without a distinguishing first name or initial. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum, Abra, ruled that these four votes should be considered stray, reducing petitioner's total and installing Rapisora as punong barangay. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum, Abra, sustained Rapisora's protest, declaring two of the four questioned votes as stray and thus reducing Flores's vote count, leading to Rapisora's proclamation. Flores appealed this decision to the Regional Trial Court of Abra, which affirmed the lower court's ruling in its entirety, agreeing that the four votes for "Flores" should have been considered invalid and not credited to petitioner. Subsequently, Flores elevated the matter to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), but his appeal was dismissed on the grounds that COMELEC lacked the power to review decisions of the regional trial court in barangay election cases, citing Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the COMELEC's dismissal of Flores's appeal. The petitioner argues that COMELEC erred in refusing to take cognizance of his case and in not applying the equity-of-the-incumbent rule (Section 211(2) of the Omnibus Election Code) to credit the four questioned votes to him. The petition also challenges the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2022-A, which declared incumbent punong barangays resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy for kagawad. The Supreme Court, however, addresses the procedural issue of appellate jurisdiction, declaring Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679 unconstitutional for improperly divesting COMELEC of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over barangay election contests decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction, as mandated by the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Regional Trial Court in barangay election contests, and whether Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679, which mandates appeals from municipal trial courts to regional trial courts in barangay election cases, is constitutional. Whether the petitioner, as an incumbent punong barangay running for kagawad, should be considered resigned from his position as punong barangay. Whether the four questioned votes should have been credited to the petitioner under the equity-of-the-incumbent rule.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Section 16(3) of Com. Res. No. 2022-A is declared valid. Nobelito Rapisora is declared the duly elected punong barangay of Poblacion, Tayum, Abra.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC and the constitutionality of Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679: The Court declared Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679 unconstitutional. Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution grants the COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Municipal and metropolitan trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Therefore, appeals from their decisions in barangay election contests should be directly to the COMELEC, not to the Regional Trial Court. The Court noted that while the petitioner followed the procedure laid out in the statute, it was deemed necessary to strike down the unconstitutional provision to correct a flaw in the law, treating the petitioner's appeal to the COMELEC as having been made directly from the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. On the resignation of an incumbent punong barangay running for kagawad: The Court upheld the validity of Section 16(3) of COMELEC Resolution No. 2022-A, which provided that incumbent barangay captains (or punong barangay) are deemed resigned upon filing their certificates of candidacy for the office of kagawad. The Court reasoned that the position of punong barangay is essentially executive, distinct from the legislative functions of a kagawad. Although Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 6679 states that incumbent elective officials running for the same office are not considered resigned, this provision applies only when they are running for the same position. Since the petitioner was the incumbent punong barangay and filed for kagawad, he was not running for the same office and was therefore deemed resigned. The Court clarified that the petitioner was elected barangay captain directly in 1982, separately from the councilmen, and his certificate of candidacy in 1989 was for kagawad, not punong barangay. Thus, he forfeited his position as punong barangay. On the application of the equity-of-the-incumbent rule: Consequently, because the petitioner was deemed resigned from his position as punong barangay upon filing his certificate of candidacy for kagawad, he was not an incumbent punong barangay on election day. Therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits of the equity-of-the-incumbent rule, which applies only to incumbents running for the same office. The four contested votes, which were cast for "Flores" without a distinguishing first name, could not be credited to him on the erroneous ground that he was still the incumbent punong barangay. These votes were correctly considered stray, leading to the affirmation of the private respondent's victory.
Main Doctrine
Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679, which provides for the appeal of barangay election contests decided by municipal trial courts to the regional trial courts, is declared unconstitutional. Such appeals fall under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections. Furthermore, an incumbent punong barangay who files a certificate of candidacy for kagawad is deemed resigned from his position as punong barangay, and thus cannot claim the benefits of the equity-of-the-incumbent rule.