G.R. No.

147904

October 4, 2002

NESTOR B. MAGNO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CARLOS C. MONTES, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which seeks to annul and set aside the resolution dated May 7, 2001 of the Commission on Elections as well as the resolution dated May 12, 2001 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. This petition originated from a case filed by private respondent on March 21, 2001 for the disqualification of petitioner Nestor Magno as mayoralty candidate of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that petitioner was previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct bribery penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. It appears that on July 25, 1995, petitioner was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor as minimum to 1 year 8 months and 21 days of prision correccional as maximum, for each of the four counts of direct bribery. Thereafter, petitioner applied for probation and was discharged on March 5, 1998 upon order of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. On May 7, 2001, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) rendered a decision granting the petition of private respondent and declaring that petitioner was disqualified from running for the position of mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections. In ruling against petitioner, the COMELEC cited Section 12 of the BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code which provides as follows: Sec. 12. Disqualifications. Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen (18) months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon, or granted amnesty. The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. The above provision explicitly lifts the disqualification to run for an elective office of a person convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude after five (5) years from the service of sentence. According to the COMELEC, inasmuch as petitioner was considered to have completed the service of his sentence on March 5, 1998, his five-year disqualification will end only on March 5, 2003.

On May 10, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the COMELEC in its resolution dated May 12, 2001. Hence, this petition. Petitioner argues that direct bribery is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Likewise, he cites Section 40 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which he claims is the law applicable to the case at bar, not BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code as claimed by the COMELEC. Said provision reads: Section 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence. xxxx Petitioner insists that he had already served his sentence as of March 5, 1998 when he was discharged from probation. Such being the case, the two-year disqualification period imposed by Section 40 of the Local Government Code expired on March 5, 2000. Thus, petitioner was qualified to run in the 2001 elections. Meanwhile, Sonia Lorenzo was proclaimed by the COMELEC as the duly elected mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Thus, on June 19, 2001, petitioner filed a supplemental petition which this Court merely noted in its resolution dated June 26, 2001. In his supplemental petition, petitioner assailed the proclamation of Sonia Lorenzo on the ground that the propriety of his disqualification was still under review by this Court. Petitioner likewise asked this Court to declare him as the duly elected municipal mayor instead of Sonia Lorenzo. On July 18, 2001, the Solicitor-General filed his manifestation and agreed with petitioner that COMELEC should have applied Section 40 of the Local Government Code. The main issue is whether or not petitioner was disqualified to run for mayor in the 2001 elections. In resolving this, two sub-issues need to be threshed out, namely: (1) whether the crime of direct bribery involves moral turpitude and (2) whether it is the Omnibus Election Code or the Local Government Code that should apply in this situation. Regarding the first sub-issue, the Court has consistently adopted the definition in Blacks Law Dictionary of moral turpitude as: "x x x an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."1

Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It frequently depends on the circumstances surrounding the violation of the law.2 In this case, we need not review the facts and circumstances relating to the commission of the crime considering that petitioner did not assail his conviction. By applying for probation, petitioner in effect admitted all the elements of the crime of direct bribery: 1. the offender is a public officer; 2. the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; 3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and [Italics supplied] 4. the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the performance of his official duties.3 Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element. The fact that the offender agrees to accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and society in general. Also, the fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and position is a betrayal of the trust reposed on him by the public. It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty and good morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. It is the second sub-issue which is problematical. There appears to be a glaring incompatibility between the five-year disqualification period provided in Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code and the two-year disqualification period in Section 40 of the Local Government Code. It should be noted that the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) was approved on December 3, 1985 while the Local Government Code (RA 7160) took effect on January 1, 1992. It is basic in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two laws, the later enactment must prevail, being the more recent expression of legislative will.4 Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In enacting the later law, the legislature is presumed to have knowledge of the older law and intended to change it. Furthermore, the repealing clause of Section 534 of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code states that: (f) All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. In accordance therewith, Section 40 of RA 7160 is deemed to have repealed Section 12 of BP 881. Furthermore, Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that laws are repealed only by subsequent

ones, and not the other way around. When a subsequent law entirely encompasses the subject matter of the former enactment, the latter is deemed repealed. In David vs. COMELEC5, we declared that RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to local government units. Section 40 thereof specially and definitively provides for disqualifications of candidates for elective local positions. It is applicable to them only. On the other hand, Section 12 of BP 881 speaks of disqualifications of candidates for any public office. It deals with the election of all public officers. Thus, Section 40 of RA 7160, insofar as it governs the disqualifications of candidates for local positions, assumes the nature of a special law which ought to prevail. The intent of the legislature to reduce the disqualification period of candidates for local positions from five to two years is evident. The cardinal rule in the interpretation of all laws is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the law.6 The reduction of the disqualification period from five to two years is the manifest intent. Therefore, although his crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude, petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from running in the 2001 elections. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). Petitioners disqualification ceased as of March 5, 2000 and he was therefore under no such disqualification anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 elections. Unfortunately, however, neither this Court nor this case is the proper forum to rule on (1) the validity of Sonia Lorenzos proclamation and (2) the declaration of petitioner as the rightful winner. Inasmuch as Sonia Lorenzo had already been proclaimed as the winning candidate, the legal remedy of petitioner would have been a timely election protest. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The challenged resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated May 7, 2001 and May 12, 2001 are hereby reversed and set aside. The petitioners prayer in his supplemental petition for his proclamation as the winner in the May 14, 2001 mayoralty elections in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, not being within our jurisdiction, is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. EMILIANA TORAL KARE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent x-----------------------------x G.R. No. 157527 April 28, 2004

SALVADOR K. MOLL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: When a mayoral candidate who gathered the highest number of votes is disqualified after the election is held, a permanent vacancy is created, and the vice mayor succeeds to the position. The Case Before us are two Petitions for Certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking the nullification of the March 19, 2003 En Banc Resolution issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in SPA No. 01-272. The Comelec resolved therein to disqualify Salvador K. Moll from the mayoralty of Malinao, Albay, and to proclaim Avelino Ceriola as the mayor-elect of the said municipality. The decretal portion of the Resolution reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. It is affirmed that private respondent Salvador K. Moll is DISQUALIFIED from holding the office of the Mayor of Malinao, Albay. His proclamation as the winning candidate for such office is declared VOID AB INITIO. Consequently, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Albay is directed to immediately convene the municipal board of canvassers of Malinao, Albay and PROCLAIM petitioner Avelino Ceriola as the Mayor-Elect of the municipality."1 In GR No. 157526, Petitioner Emiliana Toral Kare seeks the nullification of the March 19, 2003 Resolution insofar as it authorized the proclamation of Ceriola as the mayor-elect of Malinao. In GR No. 157527, Petitioner Moll prays for the annulment of the entire Resolution. The Facts Petitioner Moll and Private Respondent Ceriola were candidates for mayor of the Municipality of Malinao, Albay, during the elections of May 14, 2001. Moll obtained the highest number of votes cast for the position while Ceriola came in second, with a total of nine hundred eighty-seven (987) votes separating the two. Kare was elected vice mayor in the same election. On May 18, 2001, Ceriola filed a "Petition to Confirm the Disqualification and/or Ineligibility of Dindo K. Moll to Run for Any Elective Position." The Petition alleged that the latter had been sentenced by final judgment to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor to one (1) year and nine (9) months of prision correccional, for the crime of usurpation of authority or official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. In its May 28, 2001 Resolution,2 the Comelec First Division dismissed the Petition. Ceriola filed his Motion for Reconsideration with the Comelec en banc which, on August 31, 2001, set aside the said Resolution. It thereafter directed the clerk of the Comelec to remand the Petition to the provincial election supervisor of Albay for hearing and reception of evidence.

Ruling of the Comelec En Banc On March 19, 2003, after the provincial election supervisor of Albay submitted the report and recommendation, the Comelec en banc issued the questioned Resolution affirming Molls disqualification and proclaiming Ceriola as the mayor-elect of the municipality. As earlier adverted to, the Comelec ruled that Moll had indeed been disqualified from being a mayoral candidate in the May 14, 2001 local election, and that his subsequent proclamation as mayor was void ab initio. Consequently, he was disqualified from holding that office. The Comelec further ruled that the trial courts final judgment of conviction of Moll disqualified him from filing his certificate of candidacy and continued to disqualify him from holding office. Accordingly, the votes cast in his favor were stray or invalid votes, and Ceriola -- the candidate who had obtained the second highest number of votes -- was adjudged the winner. Thus, the Comelec ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim him as the mayor-elect of the municipality. Before Ceriolas actual proclamation, Kare filed a Petition before this Court with a prayer for a Status Quo Order, which was granted on April 1, 2003.3 In this Order, the Comelec, the provincial election supervisor of Albay, and the municipal canvassers of Malinao (Albay) were required to observe the status quo prevailing before the filing of the Petition. The other Petition was filed by Moll.4 The Issues After going through the Memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court has determined that the following are the two issues that have to be resolved: 1. Should Moll be disqualified from running and/or holding the position of mayor? 2.) If the first issue is answered in the affirmative, who should become the mayor -Ceriola, the second placer in the mayoral election? Or Kare, the elected vice mayor? The Courts Ruling The Petition in GR No. 157526 is partly meritorious, but the Petition in GR No. 157527 has no merit. First Issue: Disqualification Moll argues that he cannot be disqualified from running for mayor, since his judgement of conviction5 -- the basis of his disqualification -- has allegedly not yet attained finality. He contends that while the said judgment "promulgated on May 11, 1999 was not appealed by filing

the Notice of Appeal in the ordinary course of the proceedings, he still filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 28, 1999 within the reglementary period."6 Thus, according to him, the filing of such Motion stayed the finality of his conviction. We disagree. Section 7 of Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure reads thus: "Sec. 7. Modification of judgment. -- A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation." (Italics supplied) In turn, Section 6 of Rule 122 provides: "Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. - An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run." (Italics supplied) It is clear that the period for appeal is interrupted by the filing of either a motion for reconsideration or a motion for a new trial. Moll makes it appear that his filing of a motion for reconsideration should have stayed the running of the period for filing an appeal. What he did file, however, was a "Motion to Quash the Information"; and when it was denied, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial. The Rules of Court mandates that an appeal should be filed within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. It necessarily follows that this period is interrupted only by the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or of the final order being appealed. Neither Molls Motion to Quash Information nor his Motion for Reconsideration was directed at the judgment of conviction. Rather, they both attacked a matter extraneous to the judgment. Hence, they cannot affect the period of appeal granted by the Rules of Court in relation to the conviction. Moll himself admitted that "no regular appeal was filed because he was still questioning the propriety of the denial of his Motion to Quash the Information and the propriety of the conduct of the promulgation of his sentence despite his absence x x x."7 Aside from not interrupting his judgment of conviction, the motion to quash was even belatedly filed. Such a motion may be filed by the accused at any time before entering a plea8 and certainly not on the day of the promulgation, as Moll did.

As to his contention that the promulgation of judgment was not valid because it was done in his absence, we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General, which argues as follows: "It was not contested that Moll received a notice of the promulgation, in fact his counsel was present on the day of the promulgation - to file a motion to quash. Hence, because of Molls unexplained absence, the promulgation of the judgment could be validly made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof to his last known address or thru his counsel (Section 6, Rule 120, Rules of Court)."9 Indubitably, since no appeal of the conviction was seasonably filed by Moll, the judgment against him has become final.10 Thus, the Comelec en banc correctly ruled that he was disqualified from running for mayor, under Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code (RA No. 7160), which provides: "Section 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence; xxx xxx x x x."

Moll was sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor to one (1) year and nine (9) months of prision correccional, a penalty that clearly disqualified him from running for any elective local position. Second Issue: The Lawful Mayor In allowing Ceriola -- the second placer in the mayoralty race -- to be proclaimed mayor-elect after the disqualification of Moll, the Comelec applied Section 211(24) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which provides: "Sec. 211. Rules for the appreciation of ballots. In the reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed to be valid unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. The board of election inspectors shall observe the following rules, bearing in mind that the object of the election is to obtain the expression of the voters will: xxx xxx xxx

24. Any vote cast in favor of a candidate who has been disqualified by final judgment shall be considered as stray and shall not be counted but it shall not invalidate the ballot."

The poll body interpreted the phrase "disqualified by final judgment" to mean "disqualification by a final judgment of conviction," which was the ground upon which Moll was disqualified. It ruled: "In this case, the disqualification is based specifically on the final judgment of conviction by a court against private respondent. This final judgment disqualified private respondent from filing his certificate of candidacy in the first instance, and continues to disqualify private respondent from holding office. Accordingly, the votes cast in his favor were stray or invalid votes and the general rule in the Sunga Case does not apply. Consequently, petitioner, having obtained the highest number of valid votes, is entitled to be proclaimed the winning mayoralty candidate."11 Further, it said: "x x x As such, this instance constitutes an exception to the general rule enunciated in the Sunga Case. In the language of the said case, the foregoing provision of law is a statute which clearly asserts a legislative policy contrary to the rule that the candidate with the second highest number of votes cannot be declared the winner, given that the votes for the disqualified candidate, though of highest number, are deemed stray and invalid. Consequently, the so-called second placer shall be declared the winner because he or she in fact obtained the highest number of valid votes."12 Such arguments do not persuade. In every election, the choice of the people is the paramount consideration, and their expressed will must at all times be given effect.13 When the majority speaks by giving a candidate the highest number of votes in the election for an office, no one else can be declared elected in place of the former.14 In a long line of cases, this Court has definitively ruled that the Comelec cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes, should the winning candidate be declared ineligible or disqualified.15 The Comelec, however, asserts that this case falls under the exception declared by the Court in Sunga v. Comelec,16 from which we quote: "x x x The votes cast for a disqualified person may not be valid to install the winner into office or maintain him there. But in the absence of a statute which clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative policy on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was qualified, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless."17 According to the Comelec, Section 211(24) of the OEC is a clear legislative policy that is contrary to the rule that the second placer cannot be declared winner. We disagree.

The provision that served as the basis of Comelecs Decision to declare the second placer as winner in the mayoral race should be read in relation with other provisions of the OEC. Section 72 thereof, as amended by RA 6646, provides as follows: "Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought. "Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office." (Italics supplied) When read together, these provisions are understood to mean that any vote cast in favor of a candidate, whose disqualification has already been declared final regardless of the ground therefor, shall be considered stray. The Comelec misconstrued this provision by limiting it only to disqualification by conviction in a final judgment. Obviously, the disqualification of a candidate is not only by conviction in a final judgment; the law lists other grounds for disqualification.18 It escapes us why the Comelec insists that Section 211(24) of the OEC is strictly for those convicted by a final judgment. Such an interpretation is clearly inconsistent with the other provisions of the election code. More important, it is clear that it was only on March 19, 2003, that the Comelec en banc issued Resolution No. SPA No. 01-272. The Resolution adopted the recommendation of the provincial election supervisor of Albay to disqualify Moll from running as a mayoral candidate in Malinao, Albay. Thus, on May 14, 2001, when the electorate voted for him as mayor, they were under the belief that he was qualified. There is no presumption that they agreed to the subsequent invalidation of their votes as stray votes, in case of his disqualification. A subsequent finding by the Comelec en banc that Moll was ineligible cannot retroact to the date of the election and thereby invalidate the votes cast for him.19 Moreover, Moll was not notoriously known to the public as an ineligible candidate. As discussed above, the Resolution declaring him as such was rendered long after the election. Thus, on the part of those who voted for him, their votes are presumed to have been cast with a sincere belief that he was a qualified candidate, and without any intention to misapply their franchise. Thus, their votes cannot be treated as stray, void, or meaningless.20 The Comelecs interpretation of a section in the OEC cannot supplant an accepted doctrine laid down by this Court. In Aquino v. Comelec,21 we said:

"x x x To simplistically assume that the second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the results under such circumstances."22 To allow the defeated and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise them through no fault on their part, and to undermine the importance and the meaning of democracy and the right of the people to elect officials of their choice.23 Theoretically, the second placer could receive just one vote. In such a case, it would be absurd to proclaim the totally repudiated candidate as the voters choice. Moreover, there are instances in which the votes received by the second placer may not be considered numerically insignificant. In such situations, if the equation changes because of the disqualification of an ineligible candidate, voters preferences would nonetheless be so volatile and unpredictable that the results for qualified candidates would not be self-evident.24 The absence of the apparent though ineligible winner among the choices could lead to a shifting of votes to candidates other than the second placer.25 Where an "ineligible" candidate has garnered either a majority or a plurality of the votes, by no mathematical formulation can the runnerup in the election be construed to have obtained the majority or the plurality of votes cast.26 We reiterate that this Court has no authority under any law to impose upon and compel the people of Malinao, Albay, to accept Ceriola as their mayor.27 The law on succession under Section 44 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, would then apply. This provision relevantly states: "SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor. (a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vicegovernor or vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice governor, mayor, or vice-mayor, the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall become governor, vice-governor, mayor or vice-mayor, as the case may be. Subsequent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ranking as defined herein. xxx xxx x x x.

"For purposes of this Chapter, a permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed

from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office." The language of the law is clear, explicit and unequivocal. Thus, it admits no room for interpretation, but merely for application.28 Accordingly, when Moll was adjudged to be disqualified, a permanent vacancy was created for failure of the elected mayor to qualify for the office.29 In such eventuality, the duly elected vice mayor shall succeed as provided by law.30 For violating the law and the clear jurisprudence on this matter, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion.31 WHEREFORE, the Petition in GR No 157526 is PARTLY GRANTED, and the assailed Resolution MODIFIED. Petitioner Salvador K. Moll is DECLARED ineligible for the position of municipal mayor of Malinao, Albay. In view of the vacancy created in that office, Petitioner Emiliana Toral Kare, the duly elected vice mayor, shall succeed as mayor, following the rule on succession. The status quo order of this Court dated April 1, 2003, is made permanent. Petitioner Kare shall continue discharging the duties and powers of the mayor of Malinao, Albay. The Petition in GR 157527 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 VIRGINIA MALINAO, petitioner, vs. HON. LUISITO REYES, in his capacity as Governor of the Province of Marinduque, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF MARINDUQUE and WILFREDO RED, in his capacity as Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, respondents.

MENDOZA, J.:p This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul the decision dated October 21, 1994 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, dismissing the administrative case filed by petitioner against respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. The ground for the present petition is that the same body already found respondent Mayor guilty of abuse of authority in removing petitioner from her post as Human Resource Manager without due process in another decision which is now final and executory. The facts are as follows: Petitioner Virginia Malinao is Human Resource Manager III of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. Respondent Mayor filed a case against her in the Office of the Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence. While the case was pending, he appointed a replacement for petitioner. On February 24, 1994 petitioner filed an administrative case, docketed as Administrative Case No, 93-03, against respondent Mayor in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, charging him with abuse of authority and denial of due process. On August 12, 1994, the case was taken up in executive session of the Sanggunian. The transcript of stenographic notes of the session
1

shows that the Sanggunian, by the vote of 5 to 3 of its members, found respondent Mayor guilty of the charge and imposed on him the penalty of one-month suspension.

The result of the voting was subsequently embodied in a "Decision" dated September 5, 1994, signed by only one member of the Sanggunian, Rodrigo V. Sotto, who did so as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan." Copies of the "Decision" were served on respondent Mayor Red as well as on respondent Governor Luisito Reyes On September 12, 1994. On September 14, 1994, respondent Mayor filed a manifestation before the Sanggunian, questioning the "Decision" on the ground that it was signed by Sotto alone, "apparently acting in his capacity and designated as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan." He contended that because of this the decision could only be considered as a recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee and he was not bound thereby. On September 13, 1994, respondent Mayor sought the opinion of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government regarding the validity of the "Decision." In his letter dated September 14, 1994, DILG Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III opined that the " 'decision' alluded to does not appear to be in accordance with Section 66 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and settled jurisprudence" since in the instant case, the purported decision of the Blue Ribbon Committee should have been submitted to, approved and/or adopted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as a collegial body inasmuch as the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has the administrative jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof in conformity with Section 61 and Section 66 of the Code. It is not for the said committee to decide on the merits thereof, more so to impose the suspension, as its duty and function is purely recommendatory. If it were at all the intention of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to adopt entirely the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee, it should have so stated and the members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, who may have affirmatively voted thereon or participated in its deliberations, should have affixed their respective signatures on whatever decision that could have been arrived at. . . . On the other hand petitioner sent a letter on October 14, 1994 to respondent Governor Reyes, demanding that the "Decision" suspending respondent Mayor from office be implemented without further delay. In his letter dated October 20, 1994, respondent Governor informed the Sanggunian that he agreed with the opinion of the DILG for which reason he could not implement the "Decision" in question. On October 21, 1994, the Sanggunian, voting 7 to 2, acquitted respondent Mayor of the charges against him. The vote was embodied in a Decision of the same date, which was signed by all members who had 8 thus voted. Hence this petition. I. Petitioner's basic contention is that inasmuch as the "Decision" of September 5, 1994 had become final and executory, for failure of respondent Mayor to appeal, it was beyond the power of the Sanggunian to render another decision on October 21, 1994 which in effect reversed the first decision. These contentions are without merit. What petitioner claims to be the September 5, 1994 "Decision" of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan bore the signature of only one member (Rodrigo V. Sotto) who signed the "Decision" as "Presiding Chairman, Blue Ribbon Committee, Sangguniang Panlalawigan." Petitioner claims that at its session on August 12, 1994, the Sanggunian by the vote of five members against three found respondent Mayor guilty of having removed petitioner as Human Resources Officer III without due process and that this fact is shown in the minutes of the session of the Sanggunian. The minutes referred to read in pertinent part as follows:
7 6 5 4 3

KGD. SOTTO No if he [respondent Mayor] is acquitted, then let's acquit it. Whatever is the decision everybody goes to the majority. (There was nominal voting from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan member. For NOT GUILTY OR GUILTY) KGD. ZOLETA I vote not guilty. KGD. MUHI Guilty. KGD. LIM Not guilty. KGD. RAZA First I would like to say that I will decide on the merit of the case. The fact that the Civil Service ordered the reinstatement wherein Virginia Malinao is included, only means that the Supreme Court duly constituted has found the merit of the decision of the Civil Service. I vote that the Mayor is guilty. KGD. PINAROC Guilty. KGD. DE LUNA Guilty, there is no due process and to protect the integrity of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. KGD. LAGRAN Guilty. KGD. ZOLETA My reason for voting "not guilty" is that the mayor acted in good faith, he just followed the order of the reorganization recommended by the Placement Committee. KGD. REJANO The order of the reorganization was given by the Civil Service Commission and based on the contention made by Kgd. Palamos that since there should be reorganization to be conducted by the Civil Service Commission the mayor was supposed to go on with that reorganization and based on the reorganization there should be a screening committee to check whether the employees are really working efficiently. Based on the case that has been given to Mrs. Malinao, based on the witnesses, Ligeralde, Monterozo and Pastrana and then decided that Mayor Red has done in good faith. So I vote Not Guilty. Five (5) voted GUILTY: Kgd. Muhi Kgd. Raza Kgd. Pinaroc Kgd. Lagran Kgd. De Luna

Three (3) voted NOT GUILTY: Kgd. Rejano Kgd. Zoleta Kgd. Lim KGD. SOTTO Punishment . . . Censure? Reprimand? Suspension?. KGD. LAGRAN I suggest that only those who voted "guilty" should vote as to what punishment should be given. KGD. LIM All the members should be given the right to vote. (THE VOTING PROCEEDED.) Kgd. Muhi Suspension Kgd. Raza Suspension Kgd. Pinaroc Suspension Kgd. Lagran Suspension Kgd. de Luna Suspension KGD. ZOLETA Since we voted "not guilty" therefore "no punishment." KGD. REJANO "No punishment" KGD. LIM "No punishment" KGD. SOTTO How many months? KGD. MUHI One month. KGD. RAZA One month. KGD. PINAROC One month. KGD. LAGRAN One month. KGD. DE LUNA One month. KGD SOTTO Be it on record that on August 12, 1994 during the Executive Session of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan en banc the respondent is hereby found "guilty."

Effective upon receipt of the Decision, copy furnished: the counsel for Respondent, the Counsel for Complainant, the Municipal Treasurer, Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, the Provincial Auditor, the Civil Service Commission, Boac, Marinduque, the DILG, Boac, Marinduque, the Provincial Governor. Contrary to petitioner's claim, what the minutes only show is that on August 12, 1994 the Sanggunian took a vote on the administrative case of respondent Mayor and not that it then rendered a decision as required by 66 (a) of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) which provides as follows: 66. Form and Notice of Decision. (a) The investigation of the case shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from the start thereof. Within thirty (30) days after the end of the investigation, the Office of the President or the sanggunian concerned shall render a decision in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision. Copies of said decision shall immediately be furnished the respondent and all interested parties. In order to render a decision in administrative cases involving elective local officials, the decision of the Sanggunian must thus be "in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision." What the Sanggunian, therefore, did on August 12, 1994 was not to render a decision. Neither may the so-called "Decision" prepared by Sanggunian Member Rodrigo V. Sotto on September 5, 1994 be regarded as the decision of the Sanggunian for lack of the signatures of the requisite majority. Like the procedure in the Supreme Court, the voting following the deliberation of the members of the Sanggunian did not necessarily constitute their decision unless this was embodied in an opinion prepared by one of them and concurred in by the others, in the same way that the voting following the deliberation on a case in the Supreme Court becomes its decision only after the opinion prepared by a Justice is concurred in by others composing the majority. Until they have signed the opinion and the decision is 9 promulgated, the Justices are free to change their votes. Indeed, in his comment in this case, Member Sotto admits that the draft decision he prepared had only his signature "due to the reluctance of some Kagawads to affix their signatures." Consequently the draft never became a decision. It is noteworthy that the draft was signed by Member Sotto in his capacity as "Presiding Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan" and that it did not provide spaces for the signatures of other members of the Sanggunian had it been intended that it be signed by them. This fact led the DILG to conclude that the draft was simply the report and recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee to the Sanggunian. Now, as already stated, the Sanggunian, at its session on October 21, 1994, took another vote and, 7 to 2, decided to dismiss the case against respondent Mayor. This time its decision was made in writing, stating the facts and the law on which it was based, and it was signed by the members taking part in the decision. This, and not the so-called decision of September 5, 1994, is the decision of the Sanggunian. Petitioner complains that no notice of the session by the Sanggunian on October 21, 1994 was given to her. None was really required to be given to her. The deliberation of the Sanggunian was an internal matter. II. Petitioner brought this case by way of petition for certiorari and mandamus. A prime specification of the writ of certiorari, however, is that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to petitioner. But, in the case at bar, petitioner could have appealed the decision of the Sanggunian to the Office of the President as provided in 67(b) of the Local Government Code.
10

III. At all events, this case is now moot and academic as a result of the expiration of respondent's term during which the act complained of was allegedly committed, and further proceedings against respondent Mayor are barred by his reelection on May 8, 1995. Pursuant to 66(b) of the Code, the penalty of suspension cannot exceed the unexpired term of the respondent or a period of six (6) months for every administrative offense. On the other hand, any administrative disciplinary proceeding against respondent is abated if in the meantime he is reelected, because his reelection results in a condonation of whatever misconduct he might have committed during 11 his previous term. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 RENATO U. REYES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ROGELIO DE CASTRO, respondents. G.R. No. 120940 March 7, 1996 JULIUS O. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RENATO U. REYES, respondents.

MENDOZA., J.:p For resolution are special civil actions of certiorari. The petition in G.R. No. 120905 seeks to annul the resolution dated May 9, 1995 of the Second Division of the Commission on Elections, declaring petitioner Renato U. Reyes disqualified from running for local office and cancelling his certificate of candidacy, and the resolution dated July 3, 1995 of the Commission en banc, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, the petition in G.R. No. 120940, filed by Julius O. Garcia, has for its purpose the annulment of the aforesaid resolution of July 3, 1995 of the Commission en banc insofar as it denies his motion to be proclaimed the elected mayor of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, in view of the disqualification of Renato U. Reyes. On August 1, 1995, the Court issued a temporary restraining order directing the Commission on Elections en banc to cease and desist from implementing its resolution of July 3, 1995. It also ordered the two cases to be consolidated, inasmuch as they involved the same resolutions of the COMELEC. The facts are as follows: Petitioner Renato U. Reyes was the incumbent mayor of the municipality of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, having been elected to that office on May 11, 1992. On October 26, 1994, an administrative complaint was filed against him with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan by Dr. Ernesto Manalo. It was alleged, among other things, that petitioner exacted and collected P50,000,00 from each market stall holder in the Bongabong Public Market; that certain checks issued to him by the National Reconciliation and Development Program of the Department of Interior and Local Government were never received by the Municipal Treasurer nor reflected in the books of accounts of the same officer; and that he took twenty-seven (27) heads of cattle from beneficiaries of a cattle dispersal program after the latter had reared and fattened the cattle for seven months. In its decision, dated February 6, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan found petitioner guilty of the charges and ordered his removal from office. It appears that earlier, after learning that the Sanggunian had terminated the proceedings in the case and was about to render judgment, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Branch 42, alleging that the proceedings had been terminated without giving him a chance to be heard. A temporary restraining order was issued by the court on February 7, 1995, enjoining the Sangguniang Panlalawigan from proceeding with the case. As a result, the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan could not be served upon Reyes. But on March 3, 1995, following the expiration of the temporary restraining order and without any injunction being issued by the Regional Trial Court, an attempt was made to serve the decision upon petitioner's counsel in Manila. However, the latter refused to accept the decision. Subsequent attempts to serve the decision upon petitioner himself also failed, as he also refused to accept the decision.

On March 23, 1995, the Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Vice Governor Pedrito A. Reyes, issued an order for petitioner to vacate the position of mayor and peacefully turn over the office to the incumbent vice mayor. But service of the order upon petitioner was also refused. Meanwhile, on March 20, 1995, petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy with the Office of the Election Officer of the COMELEC in Bongabong. On March 24, 1995, private respondent Rogelio de Castro, as registered voter of Bongabong, sought the disqualification of petitioner as candidate for mayor, citing the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No .7160) which states: 40. Disqualification. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: .... (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case. Nonetheless, because of the absence of any contrary order from the COMELEC, petitioner Reyes was voted for in the elections held on May 8, 1995. On May 9, 1995, the COMELEC's Second Division issued the questioned resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, respondent having been removed from office by virtue of Administrative Case 006-94, he is hereby DISQUALIFIED from running for public office, in conformity with Section 40, paragraph (b) of the 1991 Local Government Code. The respondent's Certificate of Candidacy is CANCELLED in conformity with this resolution. The Election Officer of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro is ordered to amend the official list of candidates in Bongabong to reflect the respondent's disqualification and to IMMEDIATELY circulate the amendment to the different Boards of Election Inspectors in Bongabong upon the receipt of this decision. On May 10, 1995, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongabong, apparently unaware of the disqualification of Reyes by the COMELEC, proclaimed him the duly-elected mayor. On July 3, 1995, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division, but his motion was denied. The COMELEC en banc declared him to have been validly disqualified as candidate and, consequently, set aside his proclamation as municipal mayor of Bongabong. Hence the petition in G.R. No. 120905, which was filed on July 20, 1995, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC on the ground that the decision in the administrative case against petitioner Reyes was not yet final and executory and therefore could not be used as basis for his disqualification. It is contended that the charges against him were rendered moot and academic by the expiration of the term during which the acts complained of had allegedly been committed. Invoking the ruling in the case of Aguinaldo 1 v. Santos, petitioner argues that his election on May 8, 1995 is a bar to his disqualification.

On the other hand, it appears that petitioner Julius M. Garcia, who obtained the second highest number of votes next to petitioner Reyes in the same elections of May 8, 1995, intervened in the COMELEC on June 13, 1995 (after the main decision disqualifying Renato Reyes was promulgated), contending that because Reyes was disqualified, he (Garcia) was entitled to be proclaimed mayor of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. In its resolution of July 3, 1995, the COMELEC en banc denied Garcia's prayer, citing the ruling in 2 Republic v. De la Rosa that a candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes in an election cannot be declared winner. Hence the petition in G.R. No. 120940. Petitioner contends that (1) the COMELEC en banc should have decided his petition at least 15 days before the May 8, 1995 elections as provided in 78 of the Omnibus Elections Code, and that because it failed to do so, many votes were invalidated which could have been for him had the voters been told earlier who were qualified to be candidates; (2) that the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was final and executory and resulted in the automatic disqualification of petitioner, and the COMELEC did not need much time to decide the case for disqualification against Reyes since the latter did not appeal the decision in the administrative case ordering his removal; (3) that the COMELEC should have considered the votes cast for Reyes as stray votes. After deliberating on the petitions filed in these cases, the Court resolved to dismiss them for lack of showing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions in question. G.R. No. 120905

First. Petitioner Reyes claims that the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, ordering him removed from office, is not yet final because he has not been served a copy thereof. It appears, however, that the failure of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to deliver a copy of its decision was due to the refusal of petitioner and his counsel to receive the decision. As the secretary to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Mario Manzo, stated in his certification, repeated attempts had been made to serve the decision on Reyes personally and by registered mail, but Reyes refused to receive the decision. Manzo's certification states: On March 3, 1995, Mr. Marcelino B. Macatangay went to Manila to furnish a copy of the decision to the Counsel for Respondent, Atty. Rogelio V. Garcia, which said counsel refused to accept. On March 23, 1995, Mr. Mario I. C. Manzo, Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan with Mr. Marcelino B. Macatangay again went to the office of the Mayor of Bongabong to serve the decision. Mayor Renato U. Reyes, himself present, refused to accept the ORDER enforcing the decision citing particularly the pending case filed in the Sala of Judge Manuel A. Roman as the basis of his refusal. On [sic] 4:40 p.m., of the same date, the Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, unable to serve the ORDER, mailed the same (registered mail receipt No. 432) on the Bongabong Post Office to forward the ORDER to the Office of Mayor Renato U. Reyes. On March 28, 1995 said registered mail was returned to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan with the following inscriptions on the back by the Postmaster: 1) 1st attempt addressee out of town 9:15 a.m., 3-23-95 2) 2nd attempt addressee cannot be contacted, out of town, 8:50 a.m., 3-24-95. 3) 3rd attempt addressee not contacted out of town 8:15 a.m., 3-24-95. 4) 4th attempt addressee refused to accept 8:15 a.m., 3-27-95. On March 24, 1995, Mr. Marcelino B. Macatangay, again went to Bongabong to serve the same ORDER enforcing the decision. Mayor Renato U. Reyes was not present so the copy was left on the Mayor's Office with comments from the employees that they would 3 not accept the same. Rule 13, 3 and 7 of the Rules of Court provide for the service of final orders and judgments either personally or by mail. Personal service is completed upon actual or constructive delivery, which may be made by delivering a copy personally to the party or his attorney, or by leaving it in his office with a 4 person having charge thereof, or at his residence, if his office is not known. Hence service was completed when the decision was served upon petitioner's counsel in his office in Manila on March 3, 1995. In addition, as the secretary of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan certified, service by registered mail was also made on petitioner Reyes. Although the mail containing the decision was not claimed by him, 5 service was deemed completed five days after the last notice to him on March 27, 1995. If a judgment or decision is not delivered to a party for reasons attributable to him, service is deemed completed and the judgment or decision will be considered validly served as long as it can be shown that the attempt to deliver it to him would be valid were it not for his or his counsel's refusal to receive it.

Indeed that petitioner's counsel knew that a decision in the administrative case had been rendered is evident in his effort to bargain with the counsel for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan not to have the decision served upon him and his client while their petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court was 6 pending. His refusal to receive the decision may, therefore, be construed as a waiver on his part to have a copy of the decision. The purpose of the rules on service is to make sure that the party being served with the pleading, order or judgment is duly informed of the same so that he can take steps to protect his interests, enable a party to file an appeal or apply for other appropriate reliefs before the decision becomes final. In practice, service means the delivery or communication of a pleading, notice or other papers in a case to the opposite party so as to charge him with receipt of it, and subject 7 him to its legal effect. In the case at bar, petitioner was given sufficient notice of the decision. Prudence required that, rather than resist the service, he should have received the decision and taken an appeal to the Office of the 8 President in accordance with R.A. No. 7160, 67. But petitioner did not do so. Accordingly, the decision became final on April 2, 1995, 30 days after the first service upon petitioner. The net result is that when the elections were held on May 8, 1995, the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had already become final and executory. The filing of a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court did not prevent the administrative decision from attaining finality. An original action of certiorari is an independent action and does not interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running 9 of the reglementary period involved in the proceeding. Consequently, to arrest the course of the principal action during the pendency of the certiorari proceedings, there must be a restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction 10 from the appellate court directed to the lower court. In the case at bar, although a temporary restraining order was issued by the Regional Trial Court, no preliminary injunction was subsequently issued. The temporary restraining order issued expired after 20 days. From that moment on, there was no more legal barrier to the service of the decision upon petitioner. Petitioner claims that the decision cannot be served upon him because at the hearing held on February 15, 1995 of the case which he filed in the RTC, the counsel of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Atty. Nestor Atienza, agreed not to effect service of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan pending final resolution of the petition for certiorari. The alleged agreement between the counsels of Reyes and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot bind the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. It was illegal . And it would have been no less illegal for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to have carried it out because R.A. No. 7160, 66 (a) makes it mandatory that "[c]opies of the decision [of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan] shall immediately be furnished to respondent and/or interested parties." It was the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's duty to serve it upon the parties without unnecessary delay. To have delayed the service of the decision would have resulted in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's failure to perform a legal duty. It, therefore, properly acted in having its decision served upon petitioner Reyes. Second. The next question is whether there election of petitioner rendered the administrative charges 11 against him moot and academic. Petitioner invokes the ruling in Aguinaldo v. COMELEC, in which it was held that a public official could not be removed for misconduct committed during a prior term and that his reelection operated as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. But that was because in that case, before the petition questioning the validity of the administrative decision removing petitioner could be decided, the term of office during which 12 the alleged misconduct was committed expired. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which

the alleged misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed before his term of office expires, he can no longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected for another term. This is the rationale for the ruling in the two Aguinaldo cases. The case at bar is the very opposite of those cases. Here, although petitioner Reyes brought an action to question the decision in the administrative case, the temporary restraining order issued in the action he brought lapsed, with the result that the decision was served on petitioner and it thereafter became final on April 3, 1995, because petitioner failed to appeal to the Office of the President. He was thus validly removed from office and, pursuant to 40(b) of the Local Government Code, he was disqualified from running for reelection. It is noteworthy that at the time the Aguinaldo cases were decided there was no provision similar to 40(b) which disqualifies any person from running for any elective position on the ground that he has been removed as a result of an administrative case. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) could not be given retroactive effect. Said the Court in the first Aguinaldo 13 case: The COMELEC applied Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code Republic Act 7160) which provides: Sec. 40. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: ..... (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case. Republic Act 7160 took effect only on January 1, 1992. . . . There is no provision in the statute which would clearly indicate that the same operates retroactively. It, therefore, follows that 40(b) of the Local Government Code is not applicable to the present case. Furthermore, the decision has not yet attained finality. As indicated earlier, the decision of the then Secretary of Local Government was questioned by the petitioner in this Court and that to date, the petition remains unresolved. At any rate, petitioner's claim that he was not given time to present his evidence in the administrative case has no basis, as the following portion of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan makes clear: On November 28, 1994 the Sanggunian received from respondent's counsel a motion for extension of time to file a verified answer within 15 days from November 23, 1994. In the interest of justice another fifteen (15) day period was granted the respondent. On December 5, 1994 which is the last day for filing his answer, respondent instead filed a motion to dismiss and set the same for hearing on December 22, 1994. .... On January 4, 1995, the motion to dismiss was denied for lack of merit and the order of denial was received by respondent on January 7, 1995. Considering the fact that the last day within which to file his answer fell on December 5, 1994, respondent is obliged to file

the verified answer on January 7, 1995 when he received the order denying his motion to dismiss. In the hearing of the instant case on January 26, 1995, the counsel for the complainant manifested that he be allowed to present his evidence for failure of the respondent to file his answer albeit the lapse of 19 days from January 7, 1995. The manifestation of complainant's counsel was granted over the objection of the respondent, and the Sanggunian in open session, in the presence of the counsel for the respondent, issued an order dated January 26, 1995 quoted as follows: "As shown from the record of this case, Mayor Renato U. Reyes of Bongabong failed to file his answer within the time prescribed by law, after the motion to dismiss was denied by this Sanggunian. The Sanggunian declares that respondent Mayor Renato U. Reyes failed to file his answer to the complaint filed against him within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. Counsel for respondent requested for reconsideration twice, which oral motions for reconsideration were denied for lack of merit. Art. 126 (a) (1) provides that failure of respondent to file his verified answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the complaint shall be considered a waiver of his rights to present evidence in his behalf. It is important to note that this case should be heard in accordance with what is provided for in the constitution that all parties are entitled to speedy disposition of their cases. It is pivotal to state that the Sanggunian Panlalawigan will lose its authority to investigate this case come February 8, 1995 and therefore, in the interest of justice and truth the Sanggunian must exercise that authority by pursuing the hearing of this case. Accordingly, the counsel for complainant Dr. Ernesto L. Manalo, et al., will present his evidence on February 2, 3, and 6, 1995, and the counsel for respondent will be given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses that may be presented thereat." .... On February 2, 1995, the respondent through counsel despite due notice in open session, and by registered mail (registry receipt no. 1495) dated January 27, 1995, failed to appear. No telegram was received by this body to the effect that he will appear on any of the dates stated in the Order of January 26, 1995. Indeed, such in action is a waiver of the respondent to whatever rights he may have under our laws. All in all, herein respondent Mayor Reyes was given by this Sanggunian a period of sixty one (61) days to file his verified answer however, he resorted to dilatory motions which in the end proved fatal to his cause. Veritably, he neither filed nor furnished the complainant a copy of his answer. Failure of the respondent to file his verified answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the complaint shall be considered a waiver of his rights to present evidence in his behalf ((1). Art. 126 of Rules and Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of 1991). All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies (Sec. 16, Art. III of the Constitution).

Indeed, it appears that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to file his answer. He failed to do so. Nonetheless, he was told that the complainant would be presenting his evidence and that he (petitioner) would then have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. But on the date set, he failed to appear. He would say later that this was because he had filed a motion for postponement and was awaiting a ruling thereon. This only betrays the pattern of delay he employed to render the case against him moot by his election. G.R. No. 120940 We likewise find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in denying petitioner Julius O. Garcia's petition to be proclaimed mayor in view of the disqualification of Renato U. Reyes. That the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in 14 case the winning candidate is disqualified is now settled. The doctrinal instability caused by see-sawing 15 16 rulings has since been removed. In the latest ruling on the question, this Court said: To simplistically assume that the second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the results under the circumstances. Garcia's plea that the votes cast for Reyes be invalidated is without merit. The votes cast for Reyes are presumed to have been cast in the belief that Reyes was qualified and for that reason can not be treated 1 as stray, void, or meaningless. 7 The subsequent finding that he is disqualified cannot retroact to the date of the elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him. As for Garcia's contention that the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in not deciding the case before the date of the election, suffice it to say that under R.A. No. 6646, 6, the COMELEC can continue proceedings for disqualification against a candidate even after the election and order the suspension of his proclamation whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. For the same reason, we find no merit in the argument that the COMELEC should have seen right away that Reyes had not exhausted administrative remedies by appealing the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and, therefore, should have disqualified him before the elections. WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. 120905 and G.R. No, 120940 are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 120099 July 24, 1996 EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BIENVENIDO O. MARQUEZ, JR., respondents. Petitioner Eduardo T. Rodriguez and private respondent Bienvenido O. Marquez Jr. (Rodriguez and Marquez, for brevity) were protagonists for the gubernatorial post of Quezon Province in the May 1992 elections. Rodriguez won and was proclaimed dulyelected governor. Marquez challenged Rodriguez' victory via petition for quo warranto before the COMELEC (EPC No. 92-28). Marquez revealed that Rodriguez left the United States where a charge, filed on November 12, 1985, is pending against the latter before the Los Angeles Municipal Court for fraudulent insurance claims, grand theft and attempted grand theft of personal property. Rodriguez is

therefore a "fugitive from justice" which is a ground for his disqualification/ineligibility under Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160), so argued Marquez. The COMELEC dismissed Marquez' quo warranto petition (EPC No. 92-28) in a resolution of February 2, 1993, and likewise denied a reconsideration thereof. Marquez challenged the COMELEC dismissal of EPC No. 92-28 before this Court via petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 112889. The crux of said petition is whether Rodriguez, is a "fugitive from justice" as contemplated by Section 40 (e) of the Local Government Code based on the alleged pendency of a criminal charge against him (as previously mentioned). In resolving that Marquez petition (112889), the Court in "Marquez, Jr. vs. COMELEC"' promulgated on April 18, 1995, now appearing in Volume 243, page 538 of the SCRA and hereinafter referred to as the MARQUEZ Decision, declared that: . . . , "fugitive from justice" includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. This definition truly finds support from jurisprudence (. . .), and it may be 1 so conceded as expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the term.

Whether or not Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice" under the definition thus given was not passed upon by the Court. That task was to devolve on the COMELEC upon remand of the case to it, with the directive to proceed therewith with dispatch conformably with the MARQUEZ Decision. Rodriguez sought a reconsideration thereof. He also filed an "Urgent Motion to Admit Additional Argument in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration" to which was attached a certification from the Commission on Immigration showing that Rodriguez left the US on June 25, 1985 roughly five (5) months prior to the institution of the criminal complaint filed against him before the Los Angeles court. The Court however denied a reconsideration of the MARQUEZ Decision. In the May 8, 1995 election, Rodriguez and Marquez renewed their rivalry for the same position of governor. This time, Marquez challenged Rodriguez' candidacy via petition for disqualification before the COMELEC, based principally on the same allegation that Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice." This petition for disqualification (SPA No. 95-089) was filed by Marquez on April 11, 1995 when Rodriguez' petition for certiorari (112889) from where the April 18, 1995 MARQUEZ Decision sprung was still then pending before the Court. On May 7, 1995 and after the promulgation of the MARQUEZ Decision, the COMELEC promulgated a Consolidated Resolution for EPC No. 92-28 (quo warranto case) and SPA NO. 95089 (disqualification case). In justifying a joint resolution of these two (2) cases, the COMELEC explained that: 1. EPC No. 92-28 and SPA No. 95-089 are inherently related cases 2. the parties, facts and issue involved are identical in both cases 3. the same evidence is to be utilized in both cases in determining the common issue of whether Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice" 4. on consultation with the Commission En Banc, the Commissioners unanimously agreed that a consolidated resolution of the two (2) cases is not procedurally flawed. Going now into the meat of that Consolidated Resolution, the COMELEC, allegedly having kept in mind the MARQUEZ Decision definition of "fugitive from justice", found Rodriguez to be one. Such finding was essentially based on Marquez' documentary evidence consisting of 1. an authenticated copy of the November 12, 1995 warrant of arrest issued by the Los Angeles municipal court against Rodriguez, and

2. an authenticated copy of the felony complaint which the COMELEC allowed to be presented ex-parte after Rodriguez walked-out of the hearing of the case on April 26, 1995 following the COMELEC's denial of Rodriguez' motion for postponement. With the walk-out, the COMELEC considered Rodriguez as having waived his right to disprove the authenticity of Marquez' aforementioned documentary evidence. The COMELEC thus made the following analysis: The authenticated documents submitted by petitioner (Marquez) to show the pendency of a criminal complaint against the respondent (Rodriguez) in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., and the fact that there is an outstanding warrant against him amply proves petitioner's contention that the respondent is a fugitive from justice. The Commission cannot look with favor on respondent's defense that long before the felony complaint was allegedly filed, respondent was already in the Philippines and he did not know of the filing of the same nor was he aware that he was being proceeded against criminally. In a sense, thru this defense, respondent implicitly contends that he cannot be deemed a fugitive from justice, because to be so, one must be aware of the filing of the criminal complaint, and his disappearance in the place where the long arm of the law, thru the warrant of arrest, may reach him is predicated on a clear desire to avoid and evade the warrant. This allegation in the Answer, however, was not even fortified with any attached document to show when he left the United States and when he returned to this country, facts upon which the conclusion of absence of knowledge about the criminal complaint may be derived. On the contrary, the fact of arrest of respondent's wife on November 6, 1985 in the United States by the Fraud Bureau investigators in an apartment paid for respondent in that country can hardly rebut whatever presumption of 2 knowledge there is against the respondent. And proceeding therefrom, the COMELEC, in the dispositive portion, declared: WHEREFORE, considering that respondent has been proven to be fugitive from justice, he is hereby ordered disqualified or ineligible from assuming and performing the functions of Governor of Quezon Province. Respondent is ordered to immediately vacate said office. Further, he is hereby disqualified from running for Governor for Quezon Province in the May 8, 1995 elections. Lastly, his certificate of candidacy for the May 8, 1995 elections is hereby set aside. At any rate, Rodriguez again emerge as the victorious candidate in the May 8, 1995 election for the position of governor. On May 10 and 11, 1995, Marquez filed urgent motions to suspend Rodriguez' proclamation which the COMELEC granted on May 11, 1995. The Provincial Board of Canvassers nonetheless proclaimed Rodriguez on May 12, 1995. The COMELEC Consolidated Resolution in EPC No. 92-28 and SPA No. 95-089 and the May 11, 1995 Resolution suspending Rodriguez' proclamation thus gave rise to the filing of the instant petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 120099) on May 16, 1995. On May 22, 1995, Marquez filed an "Omnibus Motion To Annul The Proclamation of Rodriguez, To Proclaim Marquez And To Cite The Provincial Board of Canvassers in Contempt" before the COMELEC (in EPC No. 92-28 and SPA No. 95-089). Acting on Marquez' omnibus motion, the COMELEC, in its Resolution of June 23, 1995, nullified Rodriguez' proclamation and ordered certain members of the Quezon Province Provincial Board of Canvassers to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for disobeying the poll body's

May 11, 1995 Resolution suspending Rodriguez' proclamation. But with respect to Marquez' motion for his proclamation, the COMELEC deferred action until after this Court has resolved the instant petition (G.R. No. 120099). Rodriguez filed a motion to admit supplemental petition to include the aforesaid COMELEC June 23, 1995 Resolution, apart from the May 7 and May 11, 1995 Resolutions (Consolidated Resolution and Order to suspend Rodriguez' proclamation, respectively). As directed by the Court, oral arguments were had in relation to the instant petition (G.R. No. 120099) on July 13, 1995. Marquez, on August 3, 1995, filed an "Urgent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Or Preliminary Injunction" which sought to retain and enjoin Rodriguez "from exercising the powers, functions and prerogatives of Governor of Quezon . . . ." Acting favorably thereon, the Court in a Resolution dated August 8, 1995 issued a temporary restraining order. Rodriguez' "Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order And/Or For Reconsideration" was denied by the Court in an August 15, 1995 Resolution. Another similar urgent motion was later on filed by Rodriguez which the Court also denied. In a Resolution dated October 24, 1995, the Court . . . RESOLVED to DIRECT the Chairman of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") to designate a Commissioner or a ranking official of the COMELEC to RECEIVE AND EVALUATE such legally admissible evidence as herein petitioner Eduardo Rodriguez may be minded to present by way of refuting the evidence heretofore submitted by private respondent Bienvenido Marquez, Sr., or that which can tend to establish petitioner's contention that he does not fall within the legal concept of a "fugitive from justice." Private respondent Marquez may likewise, if he so desires, introduce additional and admissible evidence in support of his own position. The provisions of Sections 3 to 10, Rule 33, of the Rules of Court may be applied in the reception of the evidence. The Chairman of the COMELEC shall have the proceedings completed and the corresponding report submitted to this Court within thirty (30) days from notice hereof. The COMELEC complied therewith by filing before the Court, on December 26, 1995, a report entitled "'EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES and COMMISSION'S EVALUATION" wherein the COMELEC, after calibrating the parties' evidence, declared that Rodriguez is NOT a "fugitive from justice" as defined in the main opinion in the MARQUEZ Decision, thus making a 180degree turnaround from its finding in the Consolidated Resolution. In arriving at this new conclusion, the COMELEC opined that intent to evade is a material element of the MARQUEZ Decision definition. Such intent to evade is absent in Rodriguez' case because evidence has established that Rodriguez arrived in the Philippines (June 25, 1985) long before the criminal charge was instituted in the Los Angeles Court (November 12, 1985). But the COMELEC report did not end there. The poll body expressed what it describes as its "persistent discomfort" on whether it read and applied correctly the MARQUEZ Decision definition of "fugitive from justice". So as not to miss anything, we quote the COMELEC's observations in full: . . . The main opinion's definition of a "fugitive from justice" "include not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but also those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution." It proceeded to state that: This definition truly finds support from jurisprudence (Philippine Law Dictionary Third Edition, p. 399 by F.B. Moreno; Black's Law Dictionary,

Sixth Edition, p. 671; King v. Noe, 244 SC 344; 137 SE 2d 102, 103; Hughes v. Pflanz, 138 Federal Reporter 980; Tobin v. Casaus 275 Pacific Reporter 2d p. 792), and it may be so conceded as expressing the general and ordinary connotation of the term. But in the majority of the cases cited, the definition of the term "fugitive from justice" contemplates other instances not explicitly mentioned in the main opinion. Black's Law Dictionary begins the definition of the term by referring to a "fugitive from justice" as: (A) person, who, having committed a crime, flees from jurisdiction of the court where crime was committed or departs from his usual place of abode and conceals himself within the district. . . . Then, citing King v. Noe, the definition continues and conceptualizes a "fugitive from justice" as: . . . a person who, having committed or been charged with a crime in one state, has left its jurisdiction and is found within the territory of another when it is sought to subject him to the criminal process of the former state. (our emphasis) In Hughes v. Pflanz, the term was defined as: a person who, having committed within a state a crime, when sought for, to be subjected to criminal process, is found within the territory of another state. Moreno's Philippine Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. considers the term as an: expression which refers to one having committed, or being accused, of a crime in one jurisdiction and is absent for any reason from that jurisdiction. Specifically, one who flees to avoid punishment . . . (emphasis ours) From the above rulings, it can be gleaned that the objective facts sufficient to constitute flight from justice are: (a) a person committed a "crime" or has been charged for the commission thereof; and (b) thereafter, leaves the jurisdiction of the court where said crime was committed or his usual place of abode. Filing of charges prior to flight is not always an antecedent requirement to label one a "fugitive from justice". Mere commission of a "crime" without charges having been filed for the same and flight subsequent thereto sufficiently meet the definition. Attention is directed at the use of the word "crime" which is not employed to connote guilt or conviction for the commission thereof. Justice Davide's separate opinion in G.R. No. 112889 elucidates that the disqualification for being a fugitive does not involve the issue of the presumption of innocence, the reason for disqualification being that a person "was not brought within the jurisdiction of the court because he had successfully evaded arrest; or if he was brought within the jurisdiction of the court and was tried and convicted, he has successfully evaded service of sentence because he had jumped bail or escaped. The disqualification then is based on his flight from justice."

Other rulings of the United States Supreme Court further amplify the view that intent and purpose for departure is inconsequential to the inquiry. The texts, which are persuasive in our jurisdiction, are more unequivocal in their pronouncements. In King v. US (144 F. 2nd 729), citing Roberts v. Reilly (116 US 80) the United States Supreme Court held: . . . it is not necessary that the party should have left the state or the judicial district where the crime is alleged to have been committed, after an indictment found, or for the purpose of avoiding an anticipated prosecution, but that, having committed a crime within a state or district, he has left and is found in another jurisdiction (emphasis supplied) Citing State v. Richter (37 Minn. 436), the Court further ruled in unmistakeable language: The simple fact that they (person who have committed crime within a state) are not within the state to answer its criminal process when required renders them, in legal intendment, fugitives from justice. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT GIVEN THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN G.R. NO. 112889, THE MERE FACT THAT THERE ARE PENDING CHARGES IN THE UNITED STATES AND THAT PETITIONER RODRIGUEZ IS IN THE PHILIPPINES MAKE PETITIONER A "FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE". From the foregoing discussions, the determination of whether or not Rodriguez is a fugitive from justice hinges on whether or not Rodriguez' evidence shall be measured against the two instances mentioned in the main opinion, or is to be expanded as to include other situations alluded to by the foreign jurisprudence cited by the Court. In fact, the spirited legal fray between the parties in this case focused on each camp's attempt to construe the Court's definition so as to fit or to exclude petitioner within the definition of a "fugitive from justice". Considering, therefore, the equally valid yet different interpretations resulting from the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 112889, the Commission deems it most conformable to said decision to evaluate the evidence in light of the varied constructions open to it and to respectfully submit the final determination of the case to the Honorable Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law. The instant petition dwells on that nagging issue of whether Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice", the determination of which, as we have directed the COMELEC on two (2) occasions (in the MARQUEZ Decision and in the Court's October 24, 1995 Resolution), must conform to how such term has been defined by the Court in the MARQUEZ Decision. To reiterate, a "fugitive from justice": . . . includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one's flight from a particular jurisdiction. And obviously, there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment, or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. Rodriguez' case just cannot fit in this concept. There is no dispute that his arrival in the Philippines from the US on June 25, 1985, as per certifications issued by the Bureau of 3 4 Immigrations dated April 27 and June 26 of 1995, preceded the filing of the felony complaint in the Los Angeles Court on November 12, 1985 and of the issuance on even date of the arrest warrant by the same foreign court, by almost five (5) months. It was clearly impossible for Rodriguez to have known about such felony complaint and arrest warrant at the time he left the

US, as there was in fact no complaint and arrest warrant much less conviction to speak of yet at such time. What prosecution or punishment then was Rodriguez deliberately running away from with his departure from the US? The very essence of being a "fugitive from justice" under the MARQUEZ Decision definition, is just nowhere to be found in the circumstances of Rodriguez. With that, the Court gives due credit to the COMELEC in having made the same analysis in its ". . . COMMISSION'S EVALUATION". There are, in fact, other observations consistent with such analysis made by the poll body that are equally formidable so as to merit their adoption as part of this decision, to wit: It is acknowledged that there was an attempt by private respondent to show Rodriguez' intent to evade the law. This was done by offering for admission a voluminous copy of an investigation report (Exhibits I to I-17 and J to J-87 inclusive) on the alleged crimes committed which led to the filing of the charges against petitioner. It was offered for the sole purpose of establishing the fact that it was impossible for petitioner not to have known of said investigation due to its magnitude. Unfortunately, such conclusion misleads because investigations of this nature, no matter how extensive or prolonged, are shrouded with utmost secrecy to afford law enforcers the advantage of surprise and effect the arrest of those who would be charged. Otherwise, the indiscreet conduct of the investigation would be nothing short of a well-publicized announcement to the perpetrators of the imminent filing of charges against them. And having been forewarned, every effort to sabotage the investigation may be resorted to by its intended objects. But if private respondent's attempt to show Rodriguez' intent to evade the law at the time he left the United States has any legal consequence at all, it will be nothing more than proof that even private respondent accepts that intent to evade the law is a material element in the definition of a fugitive. The circumstantial fact that it was seventeen (17) days after Rodriguez' departure that charges against him were filed cannot overturn the presumption of good faith in his favor. The same suggests nothing more than the sequence of events which transpired. A subjective fact as that of petitioner's purpose cannot be inferred from the objective data at hand in the absence of further proof to substantiate such claim. In fact, the evidence of petitioner Rodriguez sufficiently proves that his compulsion to return to the Philippines was due to his desire to join and participate vigorously in the political campaigns against former President Ferdinand E. Marcos. For indeed, not long after petitioner's arrival in the country, the upheaval wrought by the political forces and the avalanche of events which occurred resulted in one of the more colorful events in the Philippine history. The EDSA Revolution led to the ouster of former Pres. Marcos and precipitated changes in the political climate. And being a figure in these developments, petitioner Rodriguez began serving his home province as OIC-Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Quezon in 1986. Then, he was elected Governor in 1988 and continues to be involved in politics in the same capacity as re-elected Governor in 1992 and the disputed re-election in 1995. Altogether, these landmark dates hem in for petitioner a period of relentless, intensive and extensive activity of varied political campaigns first against the Marcos government, then for the governorship. And serving the people of Quezon province as such, the position entails absolute dedication of one's time to the demands of the office. Having established petitioner's lack of knowledge of the charges to be filed against him at the time he left the United States, it becomes immaterial under such construction to determine the exact time when he was made aware thereof. While the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does not countenance flight from justice in the instance that a person flees the jurisdiction of another state after charges against him or a warrant for his arrest was issued or even in view of the imminent filing and issuance of the same, petitioner's plight is altogether a different situation. When, in good faith, a person leaves the territory of a state not his own, homeward bound, and learns subsequently of charges

filed against him while in the relative peace and service of his own country, the fact that he does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of the former state does not qualify him outright as a fugitive from justice. The severity of the law construed in the manner as to require of a person that he subject himself to the jurisdiction of another state while already in his country or else be disqualified from office, is more apparent when applied in petitioner's case. The criminal process of the United States extends only within its territorial jurisdiction. That petitioner has already left said country when the latter sought to subject him to its criminal process is hardly petitioner's fault. In the absence of an intent to evade the laws of the United States, petitioner had every right to depart therefrom at the precise time that he did and to return to the Philippines. Not justifiable reason existed to curtail or fetter petitioner's exercise of his right to leave the United State and return home. Hence, sustaining the contrary proposition would be to unduly burden and punish petitioner for exercising a right as he cannot be faulted for the circumstances that brought him within Philippine territory at the time he was sought to be placed under arrest and to answer for charges filed against him. Granting, as the evidence warrants, that petitioner Rodriguez came to know of the charges only later, and under his circumstances, is there a law that requires petitioner to travel to the United States and subject himself to the monetary burden and tedious process of defending himself before the country's courts? It must be noted that moral uprightness is not a standard too far-reaching as to demand of political candidate the performance of duties and obligations that are supererogatory in nature. We do not dispute that an alleged "fugitive from justice" must perform acts in order not to be so categorized. Clearly, a person who is aware of the imminent filing of charges against him or of the same already filed in connection with acts he committed in the jurisdiction of a particular state, is under an obligation not to flee said place of commission. However, as in petitioner's case, his departure from the United States may not place him under a similar obligation. His subsequent knowledge while in the Philippines and non-submission to the jurisdiction of the former country does not operate to label petitioner automatically a fugitive from justice. As he was a public officer appointed and elected immediately after his return to the country, petitioner Rodriguez had every reason to devote utmost priority to the service of his office. He could not have gone back to the United States in the middle of his term nor could he have traveled intermittently thereto without jeopardizing the interest of the public he serves. The require that of petitioner would be to put him in a paradoxical quandary where he is compelled to violate the very functions of his office. However, Marquez and the COMELEC (in its "COMMISSION'S EVALUATION" as earlier quoted) seem to urge the Court to re-define "fugitive from justice". They espouse the broader concept of the term and culled from foreign authorities (mainly of U.S. vintage) cited in the MARQUEZ Decision itself, i.e., that one becomes a "fugitive from justice" by the mere fact that he leaves the jurisdiction where a charge is pending against him, regardless of whether or not the charge has already been filed at the time of his flight. Suffice it to say that the "law of the case" doctrine forbids the Court to craft an expanded redefinition of "fugitive from justice" (which is at variance with the MARQUEZ Decision) and proceed therefrom in resolving the instant petition. The various definitions of that doctrine have been laid down in People v. Pinuila, 103 Phil. 992, 999, to wit: "Law of the case" has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the

case, whether correct on a general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. (21 C.J.S. 330) It may be stated as a rule of general application that, where the evidence on a second or succeeding appeal is substantially the same as that on the first or preceding appeal, all matters, questions, points, or issues adjudicated on the prior appeal are the law of the case on all subsequent appeals and will not be considered or readjudicated therein. (5 C.J.S. 1267) In accordance with the general rule stated in Section 1821, where, after a definite determination, the court has remanded the cause for further action below, it will refuse to examine question other than those arising subsequently to such determination and remand, or other than the propriety of the compliance with its mandate; and if the court below has proceeded in substantial conformity to the directions of the appellate court, its action will not be questioned on a second appeal. As a general rule a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case whether that decision is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing. (5 C.J.S. 1276-77). Questions necessarily involved in the decision on a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case on a subsequent appeal, although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the court, as the presumption is that all the facts in the case bearing on the point decided have received due consideration whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion. (5 C.J.S. 1286-87). To elaborate, the same parties (Rodriguez and Marquez) and issue (whether or not Rodriguez is a "fugitive from justice") are involved in the MARQUEZ Decision and the instant petition. The MARQUEZ Decision was an appeal from EPC No. 92-28 (the Marquez' quo warranto petition before the COMELEC). The instant petition is also an appeal from EPC No. 92-28 although the COMELEC resolved the latter jointly with SPA No. 95-089 (Marquez' petition for the disqualification of Rodriguez). Therefore, what was irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule in the MARQUEZ Decision must govern the instant petition. And we specifically refer to the concept of "fugitive from justice" as defined in the main opinion in the MARQUEZ Decision which highlights the significance of an intent to evade but which Marquez and the COMELEC, with their proposed expanded definition, seem to trivialize. Besides, to re-define "fugitive from justice" would only foment instability in our jurisprudence when hardly has the ink dried in the MARQUEZ Decision. To summarize, the term "fugitive from justice" as a ground for the disqualification or ineligibility of a person seeking to run for any elective local petition under Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code, should be understood according to the definition given in the MARQUEZ Decision, to wit: A "fugitive from justice" includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. (Emphasis ours.) Intent to evade on the part of a candidate must therefore be established by proof that there has already been a conviction or at least, a charge has already been filed, at the time of flight. Not being a "fugitive from justice" under this definition, Rodriguez cannot be denied the Quezon Province gubernatorial post.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Resolutions of the COMELEC dated May 7, 1995 (Consolidated Resolution), May 11, 1995 (Resolution suspending Rodriguez' proclamation) and June 23, 1995 (Resolution nullifying Rodriguez' proclamation and ordering the Quezon Province Provincial Board and Canvassers to explain why they should not be cited in contempt) are SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.