Myrna Yao, et al. vs. Esperanza Arconcel, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 08-99-6382. April 12, 2000.] MYRNA YAO, NELIA GONZALES, ATTY. AMY WONG, RITA CARLOS, MARIPAZ HERRERA, ATTY. SUSAN DELOS REYES, LYNETTE PUNZALAN, LEONIDA ORTIZ, ROSARIO VILLAR, TESSIE LIM and ALICE MIRANDA , petitioners , vs . ESPERANZA ARCONCEL, et al. , respondents . D E C I S I O N Before this Commission for resolution is the instant petition filed by Myrna Yao, Nelia Gonzales, Atty. Amy Wong, Rita Carlos, Maripaz Herrera, Atty. Susan Delos Reyes, Lynette Punzalan, Leonida Ortiz, Rosario Villar, Tessie Lim and Alice Miranda seeking, among others, the declaration as null and void the July 2, 1999 resolution of respondent National Council of Women of the Philippines, Committee on Elections (NCWP COMELEC, for short), nullifying the June 3, 1999 election of the 1999-2001 NCWP Board of Directors and to call another election of the NCWP Board of Directors. In their petition, petitioners claimed that the questioned resolution of the NCWP COMELEC was issued without notice and hearing, thus, denying them of their right to due process. Petitioners argued that no written protest or complaint was filed questioning the results of the election or the qualifications of any of the candidates. They assailed the said resolution for having been issued by respondent NCWP COMELEC without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, respondents raised the issue that the voters who cast their votes did not have the written authority from their respective organizations authorizing them to vote in the said election of June 3, 1999. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the respondents from implementing the said resolution, and on October 13, 1999 this Commission, after due hearing conducted thereon, issued the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from implementing the aforesaid resolution and the members of the board of directors from representing themselves as NCWP Board of Directors in a hold-over capacity. Originally, the instant case was assigned to a Hearing Panel composed of three (3) members. However, due to recent changes in the policies of this Commission, petitions of this nature are now assigned to a single Hearing Officer who shall hear and decide the same. cdll On December 20, 1999, a Notice of Preliminary Conference was issued setting the Preliminary Conference hearing of the above-entitled case on January 17, 2000 and at the same time directed the parties to submit their respective Preliminary Conference Brief. However, by agreement of both parties, the pre-trial conference scheduled on January 17, 2000 was cancelled and reset for February 8, 2000, during which conference the pre-trial hearing was terminated and both parties, through their respective counsel, were given a period of thirty (30) days or until March 9, 2000 within which to submit their respective memoranda, after which the case shall be deemed submitted for decision. The parties manifested their position in their respective Preliminary Conference Brief that they are adopting the same evidence introduced during the hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction as well as the documents attached to their respective preliminary conference brief. The parties, through their respective counsel, submitted their memoranda exactly on March 9, 2000. Pertinent to note is the respondents' allegation about their alleged objection to the submission of memorandum. Records will show that petitioner moved for ten (10) days to submit memorandum and consider the case for resolution. However, the respondents moved for thirty (30) days to submit the said memorandum. Hence, the respondents are already estopped from claiming that the procedure adopted by this Hearing Officer was over their "vehement objection". Moreover, if the respondents have any objection to the said procedures, they could have appealed the said Order of this Hearing Officer to the Commission En Banc under Section 1, Rule XV of the New Rules of Procedure. Thus, the said Order has already become final. Worth considering also is the fact that the respondents for the first time raised the issues of the Confiscated Ballots and the alleged vote buying. After a careful evaluation of the evidence and the records of the instant case, the following facts appear to have been duly established. That NCWP is an association duly registered with this Commission composed of various women organization affiliates and local council from various provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays with a total membership of 250 affiliates and 5,489 local councils nationwide; that on May 12, 1999, the Executive Director of the NCWP Atty. Gloria G. Larot, issued a Memorandum to all NCWP Board Members, Affiliates and local Councils of Women, notifying them of the June 3, 1999 election for the eleven (11) members of the NCWP Board of Directors to be held at the Conrado Benitez Hall, Ground Floor, Philippine Women's University, Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila; that it was emphasized in the said Memorandum that "Only those who have fully paid their dues are qualified to vote" and which Memorandum was adopted by both parties as their common exhibits, i.e., Exhibit "A-3" for the petitioners, and that for purposes of the June 3, 1999 election, respondent board appointed respondent Esperanza Arkoncel as Chairperson of the NCWP COMELEC and respondents Cynthia Bitanga-Villegas, Racquel Rey and Leila Rivera as members thereof. On election day, a total of 4,921 ballots were casts by those members of the NCWP who have fully paid their dues to the NCWP Secretariat. On the basis of the official receipts evidencing payment of said dues, the members were allowed to cast their votes. However, in view of the total membership of the NCWP and the payment of dues received as of May 31, 1999, respondent NCWP COMELEC printed an additional 8,000 ballots to insure the sufficiency of ballots as testified to by respondent Arkoncel at the hearing of the injunction incident on September 24, 1999. After the voting, the votes were counted and canvassed by respondent NCWP COMELEC. Petitioners, being the representative of their respective organizations which are affiliates-members of NCWP, were candidates voted for in the aforesaid June 3, 1999 NCWP election. On June 23, 1999, the respondent NCWP COMELEC proclaimed the results of the election by releasing the Official Tally of Votes showing the eleven (11) winning candidates who obtained the highest number of votes, as follows: dctai Ranking Names of Candidates Numbers of votes Obtained 1. MARIA PAZ HERRERA 3,292 2. ALICIA G. MIRANDA 3,225 3. ROSARIO ROJAS-VILLAR 3,198 4. LYNETTE A.. PUNZALAN 3,182 5. LEONIDA BAYANI-ORTIZ 3,141 6. RITA C. CARLOS 3,109 7. MYRNA T. YAO 3,104 8. NELIA T. GONZALES 3,063 9. AMY L. WONG 3,036 10. TERESITA ARRIETA-LIM 2,982 11. SUSAN DELOS REYES 2,734 xxx xxx xxx Again, both the petitioners and the respondents adopted the said Official Tally of Votes as their exhibits, i. e., Exhibit "B" for the petitioners and Exhibit "C" for the respondents. No written protest was filed after the release of the aforesaid official results of the election; nor was there any written complaint filed by any of the candidates regarding the conduct of the said election. Furthermore, there was no petition filed contesting or questioning the qualifications of any candidates. Being the eleven (11) candidates who obtained the highest number of votes, and on the basis of the proclamation of the results of the election by the respondent COMELEC, petitioners herein took their oath of office on June 25, 1999 and constituted themselves as board and elected its officers who will serve for the period 1999-2001, to wit: President Myrna T. Yao Executive Vice-President Nelia T. Gonzales Vice-President NCR Atty. Amy Wong Vice-President Northern Luzon Rita Carlos Vice -President Visayas Maripaz Herrera Vice-President Mindanao Atty. Susan Delos Reyes Vice President S. Luzon/PRO Lynette Punzalan Secretary Leonida Ortiz Treasurer Rosario Villar Asst. Treasurer Tessie Lim Auditor Alice Miranda The following officers assumed and commenced their functions as new Board of Directors of the NCWP (Exh. "A-7") On July 2, 1999, the respondent NCWP COMELEC issued Resolution No. 1, Series of 1999, nullifying the June 3, 1999 election of the 1999-2001 NCWP Board of Directors and calling another election of the NCWP Board of Directors. In the light of the foregoing established facts vis-a-vis the Resolution No. 1, Series of 1999 of the NCWP COMELEC, the principal issue in the instant case boils down to the validity of the questioned resolution, nullifying the June 3, 1999 election. It is to be noted and it stands undisputed that the proceedings of the NCWP COMELEC where it issued the questioned resolution failed to observe the rudiments of fair play. From the records it does not appear that the petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. It is even doubted whether there was even any hearing since there was neither a complaint nor a protest filed contesting the results of the June 3, 1999 election. In other words, the questioned resolution was issued without due notice and hearing. "Due process dictates that before any decision can be validly rendered in any case, the twin requirements of notice and hearing must be observed." (Salafranca vs. Philamlife Village Homeowners Association, Inc. G. R. No. 121791, December 23, 1998) Thus, the failure on the part of respondents NCWP COMELEC to observe this Constitutional safeguard rendered the resolution issued by it null and void for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction. As succinctly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Villa v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 69871, August 24, 1990, a "judgment rendered without due process is null and void." LLpr But what is more appalling is the fact that the By-laws of the NCWP does not give the respondent NCWP COMELEC the authority or power to annul or nullify the said election. And this lack of authority was admitted by no less than the Chairperson of the respondent NCWP COMELEC in her testimony on July 1, 1999 (Exhibits "E" and "E-1"). In other words, respondent NCWP COMELEC exceeded its authority when it issued the questioned resolution. While the questioned resolution speaks of "spurious and invalid votes", respondents failed to introduce or identify a single ballot as spurious or invalid. As a matter of fact, respondent NCWP COMELEC admitted that when they allegedly deliberated or met on June 30, 1999 to issue the questioned resolution, they did not have in their possession the ballots cast during the said election. (p. 65 TSN, September 24, 1999) The impropriety of respondents' resort to misrepresentation is now readily seen from their belated posturing introducing for the first time the alleged ballots and certification in their memorandum. The alleged ballot and certifications were never formally offered in evidence. Hence, the same cannot be considered by this Commission. "The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered." (Sec. 35, Rule 132, Rules of Court). The said ballots and certification were not likewise contained on the respondents' Preliminary Conference Brief. Not even an affidavit of any witness testifying to the circumstances surrounding the "confiscation" of these ballots was submitted by the respondent NCWP COMELEC as part of its trial brief. Under the rules of this Commission, the said documentary evidence should have been attached to the affidavits, otherwise, they "shall be inadmissible" (Section 12, Rule III) But even if the said "confiscated" ballots were submitted, the same will not be a ground to annul the June 3, 1999 election of the NCWP because they were not included in the ballots counted by NCWP COMELEC. Therefore, the said "confiscated" ballots will not alter or affect the results of the election as contained in the "Official Tally Votes" released by respondent NCWP COMELEC showing that the petitioner were the eleven candidates in the said election who obtained the highest number of votes. Respondents did not question the due execution of the said document. Thus, the official release of the said results constituted, the official proclamation of the petitioners as the eleven winning candidates for members of the NCWP Board of Directors for 1999-2001. No protest was filed after the election of June 3, 1999. While a complaint was filed by a certain Jessie Engson in a case docketed as SEC Case No. 6331 , the same was not filed by the real party-in-interest. The said "Jessie Engson" was not a candidate- during the June 3, 1999 election. In other words, Jessie Engson had no personality to institute the same case nor to complain against the conduct of the June 3, 1999 election. The same will not affect the election of the petitioners because the said case, aside from having been dismissed, does not bind the petitioners since they are not parties thereto. Again we cannot perceive how the "confiscated ballots", even if admitted as part of the respondents' evidence, could affect the results of the election since they were not included during the counting of the ballots. They were not part of the ballots counted and recorded or reflected in the said Official Tally of Votes released by NCWP COMELEC. Therefore, these, "Confiscated Ballots" cannot be used as evidence to annul the results of the June 3, 1999 election. For it already appears apparent that respondent COMELEC had already remedied the alleged existence of what it considered as questionable ballots by "confiscating" the said ballots and not including them during the counting. Consequently, respondent COMELEC cannot now claim that the ballots it counted and recorded in the said Official Tally of Votes are also spurious considering that during their deliberations prior to the issuance of the questioned resolution of July 2, 1999, they were not in possession of the said counted ballots. (p. 65, TSN, September 24, 1999). Anent the alleged Vote Buying, suffice it to say that respondents did not question the authenticity and due execution of the Memorandum of NCWP Executive Director, Atty. Gloria Larot, dated May 12, 1999 which served as the guidelines of the voting delegation to the NCWP election of June 3, 1999. As a matter of fact, the said document was offered and marked in evidence by the respondents. The said document, specifically provides that "only those who have fully paid their dues are qualified to vote. "The alleged checks and receipts (Annexes "13 to 144") were not likewise offered in evidence by the respondents. They merely surfaced at this stage of the proceedings. They were not even part of the testimonies of respondents' witness, Ms. Arkoncel, nor were these documents made part of an affidavit attached to respondents' pre-trial brief. Hence, the same are inadmissible in evidence. Even if the Commission admits these checks and receipts as evidence for the respondents, the same did not prove "vote-buying" because there is no evidence to show that the voters who cast the ballots voted for a particular candidate in consideration of having received money from the said candidate. What is clear is that the receipts are evidence to show that payments of the amount indicated therein were received by the NCWP and not by any voter in the said NCWP election. Respondents did not even identify any specific voter who cast a ballot in consideration of any money or thing received from any of the candidates. As admitted by the respondents, the said "checks and receipts" were made "as payment for the annual dues of the organization stated in the receipts. As regard respondents' claim that the voters in the June 3, 1999 election should carry with them a "written authority" from their respective organizations before they could vote in the said election is, to us, not persuasive. This is just a belated claim of the respondents. It is not even stated in the questioned resolution as one of the grounds for its issuance. It has no basis in law and in fact. The By-laws of the NCWP does not provide that such "written authority" is required before a voter in the NCWP election could cast her vote. The guidelines (Exhibit "A-4") circulated to all the NCWP members-voters merely required the voters to pay their annual dues so that they could be qualified to vote. The said guidelines did not specifically state that the voters should bring with them a written authority from their respective organizations. llcd Moreover, for the past years since the organization of the NCWP, no such written authority was required to be produced by a voter in any of its previous elections. Thus, respondents could not even produce any document or evidence to show that the said written authority was required by the NCWP COMELEC in any of the elections it had previously conducted. Respondent NCWP COMELEC Chairperson Arkoncel, who had been acting as Chairperson or Co-Chair in previous elections of the NCWP cannot remember any instance where such "written authority" was required by the NCWP COMELEC before a voter was allowed to vote (p.74, TSN, September 24, 1999, Testimony of Ms Arkoncel). Absent such evidence, the presumption of regularity of functions of the NCWP member who cast their votes is in their favor and, as such cannot be disenfranchised. To rule otherwise will result in a massive disenfranchisement of the NCWP voters who in good faith participated in the said election. They cannot be disenfranchised without due process and their ballots cannot be invalidated or annulled without adequate or valid basis. The foregoing clearly demonstrate the whimsicality, capriciousness, oppressiveness and patent unreasonableness of respondent NCWP COMELEC in issuing the questioned resolution. The petitioners, as qualified members and voters representing their respective organizations duly accredited by the NCWP, having been duly voted for and elected as the eleven (11) winning candidates in the June 3, 1999 NCWP election for members of the NCWP Board of Directors for the period 1999-2001 should not be prejudiced by such resolution which was apparently issued by respondent NCWP COMELEC without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents declaring 1) the questioned Resolution No. 1, Series of 1999, dated July 2, 1999 of respondent NCWP COMELEC as NULL and VOID ab initio , and 2) the petitioners as the duly elected Members of the NCWP Board of Directors for the period 1999-2001. The preliminary injunction issued on October 13, 1999 against the respondents is hereby made PERMANENT. No pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ALBERTO P. ATAS Hearing Officer