Carmencita Gotauco vs. Erlinda T. Novales, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3337. September 9, 1988.] CARMENCITA GOTAUCO , petitioner , vs . ERLINDA T. NOVALES, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This refers to the petition for injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction filed by Carmencita Gotauco against respondents Erlinda T. Novales, Manila Medical Society, Inc. (MMS for short), Commission on Elections of MMS (COMELEC for short), and the Board of Trustees of MMS, seeking to enjoin the latter respondents from inducting into office, administering the oath of office and allowing respondent Erlinda T. Novales to assume the office of Vice-President of MMS. cdll As culled from the records, the following are the facts of the case, to wit: Petitioner, as an active regular member of good standing of the MMS, filed her certificate of candidacy for Vice-President of the MMS on February 19, 1988, for the annual elections of officers of the said society scheduled on March 20, 1988; that respondent Erlinda T. Novales was also a candidate for the same position of Vice-President of said society; that during a confirmation meeting called by the COMELEC, the candidates were each personally interviewed and in the course thereof, respondent Novales verbally withdrew her candidacy; that petitioner, as a result of respondent Novales' withdrawal, was declared by the COMELEC Chairman as the unopposed candidate for the March 20, 1988 election; that on March 8, 1988, respondent Novales wrote a letter to COMELEC informing the latter that she has not officially withdrawn her candidacy since she did not submit any written withdrawal and therefore she is still a candidate having all the qualifications; that petitioner inquired by letter from the COMELEC about her status as unopposed candidate; that said letter was not acted upon by the COMELEC ; that on March 16, 1988, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 1, Series of 1988, reinstating respondent Novales as an official candidate for Vice-President of MMS for several reasons, without the petitioner being given the opportunity to be heard; that on April 6, 1988 a letter-petition was filed by petitioner before the MMS board seeking an investigation of the pre-election events that transpired but the Board resolved merely to refer the said letter-petition to the COMELEC for review; that on April 16, 1988, the COMELEC informed the Board that the application for amnesty of respondent Novales addressed to Philippine Medical Society (PMS for short) was without any indorsement from the MMS, Committee on Membership or from the Board; that said application for Amnesty was not coursed through the PMA Board of Governors; that the PMA cashier accepted the payments and respondent Novales was included in the PMA active voter's list and restored as a regular paid-up member, in accordance with the PMA Administrative Code; that even if the application for amnesty of respondent Novales was not coursed through the prescribed steps and stages of processing, the failure thereof has become moot ,and academic when her payment of amnesty dues was officially accepted by PMA and subsequently included her in the PMA Active Voter's List as a regular paid-up member; and that in view of said reinstatement, respondent Novales was voted upon in the election of March 20, 1988 as Vice-President of MMS. prLL In answer thereto, respondent Erlinda T. Novales stated that her withdrawal was not irrevocable since under the by-laws governing the matter, withdrawal is effective only when it is made in writing; that the COMELEC resolution was issued not solely on the basis of the explanation given by her; that the amnesty dues were never donated by her to the MMS, since the same was forwarded to PMA; that the resolution was issued after a hearing was conducted by the COMELEC where the petitioner and respondent Novales and other candidates were present and in said hearing, comments, explanations and objections were raised by both parties; that respondent Novales complied with the requirements provided for in the by-laws with respect to the filing of amnesty; that petitioner did not avail of the intra-corporate remedy as required by the association's by-laws since what she (petitioner) filed was a mere letter-petition and not a verified complaint as required therein; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case, the determination of qualification of candidate being the exclusive prerogative of the COMELEC and the issue raised by the petitioner is merely an internal affair of the association and is non-justifiable in character; that respondent is presumed to have followed the steps or procedure insofar as Amnesty provisions of the by-laws is concerned since the PMA and MMS have included respondent Novales in the list of qualified voters; and that the petitioner's cause of action has already prescribed. On the other hand, respondents MMS, COMELEC and MMS Board of Trustees, through counsel, alleged that the resolution of March 16, 1988, allowing respondent Novales to run as a qualified candidate for MMS Vice-President for having availed of the amnesty provided by PMA Constitution and by-laws, for being re-instated as regular active member and included in the PMA official voters' list, and for having complied with the basic requirements for qualification as such candidate under the MMS constitution and by-laws, is legal, valid and in accord with PMA and MMS constitution and by-laws; that petitioner has no cause of action against MMS, MMS Board of Trustees and MMS COMELEC , her cause of action being against PMA whose amnesty provisions, procedure for said amnesty, and the application thereof as provided for in its own constitution and by-laws and whose inclusion of respondent Novales as regular active member in the official voters' list and the alleged violation of said provisions on amnesty by respondent Novales are directly put on issue; that under the PMA and MMS constitution and by-laws, PMA is the sole body vested with authority to grant or deny amnesty to inactive and/or delinquent members, the MMS being only a recommending authority; that there was no denial of due process in the issuance of COMELEC resolution of March 16, 1988, the same having been reached and finalized after several caucuses and consultation among the COMELEC membership. Successive hearings were conducted on the injunctive relief being prayed for by the petitioner, and on May 25, 1988, an Order was issued denying the petitioner's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. On June 20, 1988, the preliminary conference hearing was terminated and the parties were given time to submit their respective memoranda simultaneously. Petitioner and the respondent, upon proper manifestation, adopted all their evidence, testimonial and documentary, which were presented during the hearing on the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, as their evidence in the main petition. Subsequently, thereafter, the case has been submitted for decision. The issue clearly revolves as to whether respondent Erlinda T. Novales is qualified to run as a candidate for the position of Vice President in the March 20, 1988 election of MMS officers. LexLib We are unable to agree to the petitioner's argument that respondent Novales is disqualified as a candidate merely because she considers Resolution No. 1, Series of 1988, of MMS COMELEC devoid of factual basis and not supported by evidence to justify its ruling and the re-instatement of respondent Novales as a candidate. It is undisputed that respondent Novales took advantage of the amnesty privilege as declared by the Philippine Medical Association. The matter of whether respondent Novales has complied with the amnesty provisions of the constitution and by-laws of PMA should be left to the discretion of the latter. The fact that the payment of dues by the respondent Novales was accepted by the PMA and her name was included in the PMA Active Voters' List and she was restored as regular paid-up member is a clear indication that she (respondent Novales) had complied with all the requirements as prescribed therein. It would certainly be unjust, as well as illogical, if after being reinstated to her status as an active member by the PMA, she would be replaced and declared ineligible. PMA is the sole body vested with authority to grant or deny amnesty to inactive and/or delinquent members. As correctly observed by the respondents MMS and MMS COMELEC , "these corporate acts enjoy the presumption of legality, validity and regularity, and may not be over come except upon clear, convincing and satisfactory showing to the contrary, . . .". As we have previously ruled in our Order dated May 25, 1988 denying the petitioner's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, "the issue of whether respondent Erlinda T. Novales is qualified to run for the position of Vice-President of MMS has been squarely decided upon by the COMELEC, the governing body of the MMS insofar as questions of dispute relating to the component society candidates are concerned. 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. We are of the view that petitioner's evidence are not sufficient to override the presumption of law on legality, validity and regularity of the MMS resolution of March 16, 1988, and the PMA action when it included in its list of voters and/or regular/active members the name of respondent Erlinda T. Novales". Anent petitioner's argument that she was denied her rights to due process when she was not given the opportunity to be heard on the matter treated in the COMELEC resolution of March 16, 1988, reinstating respondent Novales as candidate, of pertinency is the undisputed fact that the complaint she filed before the Board was a mere letter-petition and was not even verified, a formal requirement as provided for in the by-laws. The board in such a situation has absolutely no jurisdiction to act and decide on a mere letter. The rule on this matter, as contained in the by-laws are valid, the same being reasonable and in harmony with the basic law on due process. Besides, basic is the rule that the by-laws of a corporation are valid if they are reason able and calculated to carry into effect the objects of the corporation, and are not contradictory to the general policy of the laws of the land. (Supreme Commandery of the Knights of the Golden Rule vs. Ainsworth, 71 Ala., 436 Am. Rep., 332). But the above facts notwithstanding, the said letter of petitioner was referred to the MMS COMELEC , for action. For all the foregoing, we find no justifiable reason to declare respondent Novales ineligible or disqualified for the position of Vice-President to which she was duly elected on March 20, 1988. WHEREFORE, the instant case should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ALBERTO P. ATAS Hearing Officer