Emmanuel Campana vs. Cesar Villafuerte, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3314. October 27, 1988.] EMMANUEL CAMPANA , petitioner , vs . CESAR VILLAFUERTE, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This is a petition for a writ of injunction with a prayer for ex-parte restraining order filed by Erlinda T. Novales and Emmanuel Campana against Cesar F. Villafuerte, Sr., Virgilio C. del Castillo, Roy P. Villasor, Arcadio L. Tamayo, Edgardo T. Caparas and Thelma N. Clemente acting as the Commission on Elections of the Manila Medical Society, Inc., (COMELEC) to enjoin the latter from proceeding with the disqualification of petitioners Novales and Campana from running for the position of Vice-President and District Councilor of the Manila Medical Society, Inc., (MMS), respectively, and from excluding petitioners from the official list of candidates for the MMS elections scheduled on March 20, 1988. prcd Petitioners alleged that the MMS election is scheduled to be held on March 20, 1988, at the Philippine Plaza Hotel with the following positions at stake, namely: a)President b) Vice-President c) Secretary d) Treasurer e) Four (4) District Presidents f) Eight (8) District Councilors and g) Councilor-at-large. Petitioner Novales is an active member of good standing of the MMS and the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) and is running for the position of Vice-President of the MMS, while petitioner Campaa is also a member of good standing of both MMS and PMA and is running for the position of District Councilor representing the fourth District Chapter of MMS; that on March 15, 1988, a meeting was held between the candidate for the forthcoming election and the COMELEC of the MMS, where out of the six (6) incumbent members of the COMELEC, only respondent Villafuerte and Del Castillo were present; that during the meeting, candidates present were informed of a certain decision which the COMELEC had arrived at with respect to the qualifications of the candidates; that no written copy of said decision was furnished the petitioners; that petitioner Novales was verbally informed that she was considered by the COMELEC of MMS as having withdrawn her candidacy for the position of Vice-President; that said decision of the respondents acting as the COMELEC with respect to petitioner Novales that she had withdrawn her candidacy for Vice-President is totally without basis, since the latter could not have officially and effectively withdrawn her candidacy for the reason that under the PMA Election Code, withdrawal of candidacy should be made in writing before the election day; that as a matter of fact, on March 8, 1988, petitioner Novales specifically maintained in her letter addressed to the COMELEC, that she had not officially withdrawn her candidacy, which letter of petitioner Novales was considered by the COMELEC as a motion for reconsideration; that similarly, the decision of the respondents acting as COMELEC with respect to petitioner Campaa's qualification is without basis since petitioner Campaa received the approval and endorsement as candidate for councilor of the majority of the members of the District Council, all in compliance with the provisions of the MMS by-laws providing that candidates for district councilor must have an approval and endorsement of the District Council; and that on the basis of the foregoing facts, petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction consisting in restraining and enjoining respondents, their agents, substitutes or other person acting on their behalf from proceeding with the disqualifications of petitioners Novales and Campaa from running for the positions of Vice-President of MMS and District Councilor of MMS, respectively, and from excluding petitioners from the official list of candidates for the MMS elections scheduled on March 20, 1988 or on any other date thereafter. llcd The Commission, acting upon the petitioners' prayer for injunction, issued a Temporary Restraining Order on March 18, 1988, effective for a period of twenty (20) days, enjoining the respondents acting as COMELEC OF MMS from proceeding with the disqualification of petitioners from running for the positions of Vice-President and District Councilor of MMS, respectively, and from excluding them from the list of candidates for the MMS election. Subsequently, thereafter, an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion was filed by the counsel for the petitioners informing this Commission that the MMS COMELEC passed a resolution stating that petitioner Novales is qualified to run as Vice-President of MMS and that her name is included in the official list of candidates for MMS elections and moved that petitioner Novales be dropped as party-petitioner in the instant petition, which motion was granted in an Order dated March 22, 1988. In a formal appearance with motion filed by the counsel for the respondents on March 23, 1988, it was intimated that the respondents acting as the COMELEC of MMS desisted from disqualifying petitioners from running as candidates for Vice-President and District Councilor, respectively, and from excluding petitioners from the list of candidates for the MMS election held on March 20, 1988 and in fact, both petitioners were among the candidates who were voted upon in said MMS elections. In view of this development, respondents argued that the restraining order as well as the pending incident of injunction had become moot and academic and accordingly they pray that the restraining order issued be lifted and the injunction be denied for being moot and academic, which motion was granted in an Order issued on April 5, 1988. On May 9, 1988, respondents filed their answer alleging, among others, that petitioner Campana was validly disqualified as candidate for district councilor and excluded from the official list of candidates for MMS Annual Elections of March 20, 1988; that as basis for said disqualification, MMS Comelec, through Resolution of March 16, 1988, cited Section 2, 13-4, Chapter XIII of the Constitution and by-laws of MMS which provides that candidates for district councilor must have the approval and endorsement of the District Council; that the aforequoted resolution of the MMS Comelec disqualifying petitioner Campaa as candidate for district councilor and excluding him from the official list of candidates for failure to comply with the prescribed requirement and qualification for said position is fully in accord with and supported by law and the MMS Constitution and by-laws; that the petition has no leg to stand on whether upon the law or the record of this case; that the same should be dismissed and all the votes cast for petitioner as candidate for district councilor should be cancelled and set aside; and that although petitioner was voted upon as such candidate at said election because of the restraining order, petitioner has not been proclaimed as district councilor elect, has not taken his oath of office and has not assumed such office pending final determination of the instant proceedings. prLL At the preliminary conference hearing held on June 7, 1988, the parties, through their respective counsel, prayed that instead of going through the rigors of protracted trial, they be allowed to submit their respective memoranda simultaneously both in support of their respective position regarding the issue at bar, which motion was granted and both of them were given a period of thirty (30) days within which to submit the same. The sole issue in this case clearly revolves as to whether or not petitioner is qualified to run as candidate for district councilor in the MMS election held on March 20, 1988. We are thus compelled to look into the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws of MMS, particularly par. 4, Section 2, Chapter XIII which provides that candidate for district councilor must have the approval and endorsement of the District Council. Under the provisions of Section 1-A, Chapter IX thereof, the District Council and officer shall be the following: 1. District President Chairman 2. District Vice-President Vice Chairman 3. Secretary 4. Treasurer 5. Councilor (15) Thus, interpreting the provisions as it is worded, the total number of the district council members including its officers is nineteen (19). Respondent Comelec, in its resolution, merely required the simple majority rule of the above-members if only to facilitate compliance thereon. From what appears from the records, petitioner Campaa failed to obtain the required number which under a simple mathematical computation would be (10) votes or ten signatures of the District Council members. Petitioner's claim that he received the approval and endorsement as candidate for councilor of the majority of the above members of the district council is belied by Resolution of March 16 1988 of the MMS Comelec. cdll True it is that petitioner submitted a copy of the document containing the signatures/endorsement of the members of the petitioner's district council. However, we quote with authority the following findings by the MMS Comelec to the effect that "Upon Verification of the total number of signatures that expressed their endorsement of the candidacy of Dr. Emmanuel Campaa, it was discerned that there were only nine (9) qualified voting signatories out of the total nineteen (19) members of the District Council, namely: 1. Dra. Andrea E. Dimayuga 2. Dra. Celerina Silverio 3. Dr. Edgar Talavera 4. Dr. Luis Villaruz 5. Dr. Francisco Victoria 6. Dra. Leticia de Mesa 7. Dr. Ricardo Braganza 8. Dra. Celia Talusan 9. Dra. Lydia Yee The remaining signatories are non-voting members of the District Council, namely: 1. Dr. Jose O. Mata 2. Dr. Aspren Talapian 3. Dr. Metodio Palaypay 4. Dr. Emiliano Magdangal 5. Dr. Serafin Sepulvida Dr. Emmanuel Campaa, therefore, has failed to obtain the minimum number of 10 votes, which constitute the majority out of the 19 total number of members in the 4th District Council. As we have previously ruled in SEC Case No. 3337 entitled Carmencita Gotauco vs. Erlinda Novales, et al., "The issue is strictly an internal affair that affects only the MMS and/or its members. And it is the COMELEC, more than anybody else, which is primarily responsible for the resolution of any questions relating to matters affecting the qualifications of component society candidates". To our mind, the members of the COMELEC are in the most advantageous and logical position to determine from among the members of MMS, who are most qualified as candidate and who can best fulfill the functions of the office at stake in the election. Unless, therefore, the law speaks otherwise, we still concede that the wide scope of power and authority of the MMS Comelec has been fully recognized. There is no doubt that the Resolution of March 16, 1988 is a legal, valid and correct act emanating from a body charged solely with the responsibility of assuring a clean, honest and peaceful election among the members of the Manila Medical Society. Respondent MMS Comelec had made its stand and this Commission is not in any manner possessed with authority to interfere with the power and prerogative of the MMS Comelec which is further reinforced by the fact that the petitioner herein, when he filed the certificate of candidacy knew very well of the provisions of the by-laws about the requirement on the favorable approval and endorsement by the District Council which he lacks. But this notwithstanding, respondent MMS Comelec gave petitioner Campaa seven (7) days' extension to submit the said requirement which petitioner failed to do. As correctly observed by the respondents, ". . . he cannot now be heard to complain against his disqualification and exclusion from MMS Official list of candidates for the March 20, 1988 election for he has only himself to blame for the same". For all the foregoing, we find petitioner not qualified to run as candidate for the position of district councilor in the March 20, 1988 MMS election. WHEREFORE, the instant case should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ALBERTO P. ATAS Hearing Officer