Wacnang v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lawrence B. Wacnang was a candidate for Governor of Kalinga Province in the May 14, 2007 elections. He was initially opposed by Rommel W. Diasen, who first filed a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the House of Representatives and then, on the same day, withdrew it and filed a COC for Governor. Nine days after filing his COC for Governor, Rommel Diasen was shot and killed. His wife, Floydelia R. Diasen, subsequently filed her COC as a substitute candidate for Governor. Procedural History: The COMELEC of Kalinga Province referred the determination of whether to give due course to Floydelia Diasen's COC to the COMELEC En Banc. The Provincial Election Supervisor (PES) recommended denial, finding the substitution improper as Rommel Diasen was allegedly an independent candidate and the filing was out of time. The COMELEC Law Department agreed. However, the COMELEC En Banc initially denied due course to the COC but then reversed its decision, issuing Resolution No. 7911, which gave due course to Floydelia Diasen's candidacy. Floydelia Diasen won the election and was proclaimed Governor. Subsequently, Wacnang filed a Petition for Disqualification against Diasen with the COMELEC, and another party filed a Petition for Quo Warranto. The Petition: Lawrence B. Wacnang filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul COMELEC Resolution No. 7911. He argues that Floydelia Diasen could not validly substitute her deceased husband because Rommel Diasen was an independent candidate, did not validly file his COC for Governor, and that Floydelia Diasen did not file a valid Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA). Wacnang contends that the CONAs were spurious and that he had also filed a petition for disqualification and a quo warranto case was pending, raising the issue of forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside Resolution No. 7905 and issuing Resolution No. 7911. Whether the private respondent's victory in the elections mooted the present case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for violation of the rules on forum shopping. The Court found that the petitioner filed a petition for disqualification with the COMELEC involving the same parties and issues as the present petition for certiorari, constituting prohibited forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that the petitioner was guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping is defined as the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The Court noted that the petitioner's earlier-filed petition for disqualification with the COMELEC involved the same parties and asserted the same rights based on the same issues as the present petition for certiorari. Specifically, both actions questioned the validity of the private respondent's substitution and her COC. The Court emphasized that the reliefs sought in both actions were essentially the same: the nullification of the private respondent's candidacy and election victory. The Court reiterated that forum shopping is a violation of the rules and leads to the summary dismissal of a petition. The Court also pointed out that the COMELEC's observation in the disqualification case, that election results should be resolved in favor of the candidate who received the popular mandate, further removed possibilities for equitable considerations in ruling on the forum shopping issue. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court did not reach the merits of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion because the petition was dismissed on the procedural ground of forum shopping. The Court's primary focus was on the procedural defect of filing multiple actions involving the same issues and parties. On the issue of mootness: The Court also did not reach the merits of whether the private respondent's victory mooted the case, as the petition was dismissed on the procedural ground of forum shopping. The existence of forum shopping superseded the consideration of mootness.
Main Doctrine
The filing of multiple actions involving the same issues and parties before different tribunals constitutes forum shopping, which is a ground for the summary dismissal of a petition.