Jesusita Opano vs. Paraluman Giron, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3539. December 21, 1989.] JESUSITA OPANO , complainant , vs . PARALUMAN GIRON, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This is an action to annul the proclamation of respondent Paraluman Giron as a member of the board of directors of the Manila Public School Teachers Association, Inc. (MPSTA) and to proclaim and install the complainant as one of the duly elected members of the board of directors of the said association, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. LexLib In support thereof, complainant alleged, inter alia, that respondents Felicidad Fernandez, Amelia Cardeno and Felisa Venezuela were the chairperson and members of the MPSTA Election Commission respectively, charged with the conduct of the election of the board of directors of MPSTA, as well as to receive, try and decide protests incidental to the election and to proclaim the winners; that the election was held sometime on February 28, 1989. Complainant filed her certificate of candidacy in the supervisor category through the Teach Party; that on the day of the election, complainant arrived at the place of the election and was greeted and accompanied by the incoming President, Fidel Fababier and out-going Secretary, Melinda Anonuevo, who accompanied her to the Chairman of the Election Commission, Mrs. Fernandez, to have her registered. However, Mrs. Fernandez, told the complainant that the Election Committee has run out of receipts, for which reason, she failed to register and to cast her vote; that she stayed in the hall until the ballots in all voting precincts were canvassed and participated as a candidate; that after the canvassing, the Election Commission proclaimed the complainant as among the winning members of the board of directors. The complainant garnered 105 votes as against her closest rival, respondent Paraluman Giron, who got only 99 votes. On March 2, 1989, the complainant received a letter from respondent Felicidad C. Fernandez inviting her to appear at the MPSTA office to resolve a protest filed by a certain Adoracion Acua and Ricardo Gaelo, who, although supervisors, were not candidates for any office in the elections, hence not qualified to protest under the MPSTA by-laws and election rules. During the hearing of the protest, complainant questioned the lack of standing and personality of the two protesters to protest the election and moved that the protest be dismissed; that respondent Fernandez, however, refused to dismiss the protest and instead produced a letter of protest signed by respondent Paraluman Giron dated March 3, 1989; that complainant objected to the sudden and surprise production of the letter protest on the ground that she was not furnished a copy of the same, as well as the MPSTA and the same was filed after the lapse of five (5) days, for which reason, it was deemed not filed, hence, not a valid protest; that the haste and railroading of the hearing, as well as the admission of the questioned letter protest were all engineered by respondent Fernandez. On March 9, 1989, respondent Fernandez, promulgated the following decision. xxx xxx xxx RESOLVED, That the Electoral Commission unanimously resolves that Mrs. Jesusita Opano failed to qualify under the provisions of Article IV, Section D, Paragraph 6 as qualified nominee for failure to register and therefore all the votes casts in her favor cannot be officially counted for the purpose of declaring the same as votes validly cast on her name. That in view of this, whereof, the candidate who is qualified as a delegate candidate is officially declared as winner, member of the MPSTA Board Supervisor Category in the person of Mrs. Paraluman Giron. On March 13, 1989, the complainant filed her motion for reconsideration of the decision, which the Election Commission denied. In answering the complaint, the respondents through counsel, re-stated the true facts and issues, discussed the procedures in electing the members of the board of MPSTA, Inc., the facts relating to the conduct of election of February 28, 1989, which answer contained several annexes and thereby denied the material averments of the complaint. On June 29, 1989, counsel for the complainant filed a motion to withdraw the application for preliminary injunction and instead moved that complainant be allowed to temporarily occupy the questioned seat in the board. By agreement of the parties, the case was set for hearing on the merits where both parties presented testimonial as well as documentary evidences. After a careful and thorough evaluation of the evidence adduced, this Hearing Officer finds no legal nor factual basis to annul the proceedings conducted by the Electoral Commission nor to proclaim the complainant as the lawfully elected member of the board of directors of the MPSTA supervisor category for the term 1989-1990. In the issue at bar, when the complainant accepted her nomination (Exhibit "5") she was advised to file her certificate of candidacy before the Electoral Commission, MPSTA Office on or before 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Monday, February 13, 1989. Despite knowledge, however of the deadline to file the said certificate of candidacy, and knowing that the Election on February 28, 1989 would start at 1:00 in the afternoon, complainant arrived at around 4:30 in the afternoon at the venue on the day of the election. Thus, as established and admitted by complainant she failed to register and cast her vote. In fact her name was not among those listed in the registration and voting record of delegates of the MPSTA as a duly registered candidate and voter for the supervisor's group. Under the MPSTA's Guidelines, Comelec Form 1, paragraph 7 thereof explicitly provide, as follows: "Nominee not duly registered on the day of the annual convention as a delegate of his/her own chapter will not be considered as a candidate and this will be declared disqualified." Conformably with the aforecited proviso, it is a condition precedent that before a candidate can be qualified for the position, she must be a registered voter. Therefore, the votes garnered by the complainant is of no significance to her claim as the lawfully elected candidate for having clearly failed to register and cast her vote. WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the complaint should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED, for lack of merit. Respondents' claim for damages is hereby denied, no sufficient evidence having been presented to support the same. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ENRIQUE L. FLORES, JR. Hearing Officer