Damasen v. Tumamao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Following the death of Nelia Tumamao, Vice-Mayor of San Isidro, Isabela, Ligaya C. Alonzo succeeded to the position, creating a vacancy in the Sangguniang Bayan. Mayor Abraham T. Lim recommended respondent Oscar G. Tumamao, a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), to fill the vacancy. Tumamao took his oath and attended sessions. On May 5, 2005, petitioner Atty. Lucky M. Damasen took his oath of affiliation with the LDP and secured a letter of nomination from LDP Provincial Chairman Ana Benita Balauag. On May 12, 2005, Governor Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca appointed Damasen to the Sangguniang Bayan, and he took his oath on May 16, 2005. However, Damasen was not recognized during the May 17, 2005 session. Procedural History: Damasen filed a Petition for Quo Warranto with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to be declared the rightful Sangguniang Bayan member. The RTC ruled in favor of Damasen, declaring him the rightful occupant of the position, citing compliance with RA 7160 and that the revocation of nomination occurred after his appointment. Tumamao appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC Decision, dismissing the quo warranto case. The CA found that Damasen's nomination was not from the highest official of the LDP, that he was not a bona fide member of the LDP, and that his nomination was eventually revoked. The Petition: Damasen filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA Decision. He raised issues regarding the CA's dismissal of the quo warranto based on non-compliance with nomination requirements, the CA's failure to rule on Tumamao's assumption to office, and Tumamao's authority to question Damasen's appointment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the quo warranto case on the basis that the petitioner's nomination did not comply with the requirements of Section 45 of Republic Act No. 7160. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision when it did not rule on the validity of the assumption to office of the private respondent as Sangguniang Bayan member. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal filed by the private respondent, the latter having no authority to question the validity of the petitioner's appointment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The June 14, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the quo warranto case on the basis that the petitioner's nomination did not comply with the requirements of Section 45 of Republic Act No. 7160: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's ruling. Section 45(b) of RA 7160 mandates that the appointee to a vacant Sangguniang Bayan position must be nominated by the political party under which the vacating member was elected. Crucially, the law requires a nomination and a certificate of membership from the highest official of the political party concerned, and any appointment without these is null and void ab initio. The Court found that Damasen's nomination was made by the LDP Provincial Chairman, who was not necessarily the highest official of the party. More importantly, a letter from the LDP Deputy Secretary Counsel stated that Damasen was not a bona fide member of the LDP, as his membership had not been endorsed to the National Council for approval, and his Certificate of Candidacy showed he was nominated by the Lakas-CMD Party. The Court emphasized that maintaining party representation, as intended by the electorate, is the rationale behind this rule, citing Navarro v. Court of Appeals. Since Damasen was not a bona fide member of the LDP, his appointment could not preserve the party representation of the LDP in the Sangguniang Bayan. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision when it did not rule on the validity of the assumption to office of the private respondent as Sangguniang Bayan member: The Court found this procedural issue to be without merit. The core of the controversy was determining who between Damasen and Tumamao was entitled to the contested position. To require a separate quo warranto case for Tumamao would lead to multiplicity of suits, which is abhorred by law. The appeal before the CA was the proper procedural vehicle to resolve the conflicting claims over the Sangguniang Bayan seat. The Court's focus was on the substantive issue of who rightfully occupied the position, which inherently addressed the validity of both claims. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal filed by the private respondent, the latter having no authority to question the validity of the petitioner's appointment: The Court reiterated that Tumamao had the right to appeal. The determination of who between Damasen and Tumamao was entitled to the contested position was the crux of the controversy. By appealing the RTC's decision, Tumamao was not initiating a new action but was challenging a ruling that declared Damasen as the rightful occupant and excluded Tumamao. The appeal was a continuation of the original quo warranto proceedings, and Tumamao, as the respondent in the RTC and the party whose claim was adversely affected by the RTC decision, had the legal standing to question the RTC's ruling through an appeal. The Court found no multiplicity of suits, as the appeal was the appropriate remedy to resolve the dispute.
Main Doctrine
The appointment to a vacant position in the Sangguniang Bayan, under Section 45(b) of RA 7160, requires not only a nomination but also a certificate of membership from the highest official of the political party concerned. An appointment made without these conditions is null and void ab initio. Furthermore, the appointee must be a bona fide member of the political party of the Sanggunian member who caused the vacancy to maintain party representation as intended by the electorate.