EN BANC
[G.R. No. 205233. February 18, 2014.]
FERDINAND O. GUNDAYAO (LP AND BAYAN MUNA CANDIDATE FOR COUNCILOR), petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 18, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205233 — FERDINAND O. GUNDAYAO (LP AND BAYAN MUNA CANDIDATE FOR COUNCILOR), Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Petitioner Ferdinand O. Gundayao hereby assails the validity of Resolution No. 9610 declaring him a nuisance candidate issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc on the ground that the COMELEC thereby violated his right to due process.
It appears that on October 3, 2012 Gundayao filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Councilor for the First District in Caloocan City during the 2013 elections. 1
On January 11, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed Resolution No. 9610, 2 quoted in its pertinent part as follows:
NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, after due deliberation, taking into consideration the reports of field officials as submitted by the Law Department, the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code and other related elections laws, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, as follows: IASEca
1. To declare the following as NUISANCE candidates and to cause the immediate cancellation/deletion of their names from the Candidates' Profile System and the Certified List of Candidates for the May 13, 2013 Elections:
| Name of Candidate | Position | Municipality/City/ |
| Province | ||
| xxx xxx xxx | ||
| Gundayao, Ferdinand Oria | Member SP, 1st | Caloocan City |
| District | ||
| xxx xxx xxx |
On January 16, 2013, however, Gundayao received a notice from the Office of the Regional Director of the National Capital Regional of the COMELEC setting a hearing on his COC at 9:00 a.m. of January 17, 2013. 3 Gundayao appeared at the hearing to establish that he was not a nuisance candidate. 4
On January 19, 2013, the COMELEC Law Department, through Atty. Esmeralda Amora-Ladra, issued Memorandum No. 13-0154 5 recommending that Gundayao's COC be given due course, thus: EHaCID
Pursuant to Comelec Minute Resolution No. 12-1101 dated 29 November 2012, Comelec Law Department Memorandum Nos. 12-1139 and 12-1467 and Comelec Resolution No. 9523, and after due clarificatory hearing, please find below the consolidated report/recommendations of the Regional Election Director, National Capital Region, City Election Officers, Caloocan City and Muntinlupa City and Provincial Election Supervisor, Province of Bulacan, respectively:
| Seq. | Name of | Position | Municipality/ | Political | Recommendation of |
| Candidate | City/Province | Party | RED/PES/EO | ||
| xxx xxx xxx | |||||
| 12 | Gundayao, | Member SP | Caloocan | Independent | He is a junk shop |
| Ferdinand | City, 1st | owner, a dealer of air- | |||
| Oria | District | conditioning units, | |||
| and an incorporator of | |||||
| Bridget Ventures. He | |||||
| allegedly earns 30K and | |||||
| 50K/mo. He is currently | |||||
| the VP for Luzon of | |||||
| Bayan Muna Partylist, | |||||
| Chairman of Bayan | |||||
| Muna, Caloocan Chapter | |||||
| and spokesperson of | |||||
| Makabayn (sic) | |||||
| Coalition. This is the | |||||
| first time he is running | |||||
| for a public office but is | |||||
| confident to win based | |||||
| on the support given to | |||||
| him by the coalition and | |||||
| LP. Hearing Officer | |||||
| recommends to give | |||||
| DUE COURSE to the | |||||
| COC. | |||||
| xxx xxx xxx |
The COMELEC En Banc took note of Memorandum No. 13-0154 during its regular meeting on January 29, 2013. 6 CADHcI
The inaction of the COMELEC En Banc on his COC impelled Gundayao to file a petition for certiorari alleging that Resolution No. 9610 was unconstitutional because he had been thereby denied due process prior to its issuance. He contended that Section 4, Rule 24 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure required prior notice and hearing before the declaration of a person as a nuisance candidate; 7 and that, accordingly, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying him the right to be heard, and in declaring him a nuisance candidate despite the contrary findings of its Law Department. 8
The COMELEC countered that it was authorized by Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 9 (Omnibus Election Code), as implemented by Section 4, Rule 24 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, 10 to declare motu proprio any candidate as a nuisance candidate; that it had allowed Gundayao to be heard during the January 17, 2013 clarificatory hearing that resulted in the recommendation of its Law Department to give due course to his COC; that the determination of whether or not one was a nuisance candidate was within its competence as the sole judge of all contests relating to the qualifications of candidates, among others; and that it did not commit grave abuse of discretion if it ultimately held differently from any of its election officers. ESHcTD
Was COMELEC Resolution No. 9610 unconstitutional insofar as it declared Gundayao a nuisance candidate without observing procedural due process?
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for its lack of merit.
The records clearly show that Gundayao was afforded the right to be heard. Gundayao himself admitted that the COMELEC Law Department required him to attend the hearing on January 17, 2013 to submit evidence proving that he was not a nuisance candidate. It is noted that he appeared at the hearing for that purpose. Hence, the requirement of due process was satisfied. Indeed, the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, 11 or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain one's side. 12
The Court rejects the imputation of grave abuse of discretion to the COMELEC for ignoring the findings and recommendation of its Law Department to the effect that Gundayao was not a nuisance candidate. Memorandum No. 13-0154 of the Law Department was at best recommendatooy in nature. The COMELEC En Banc, being the sole judge of the qualifications of elective local candidates, had the full discretion to either adopt or disregard the findings and recommendations made in Memorandum No. 13-0154. Hence, the COMELEC was not guilty of grave abuse of discretion. ICacDE
At any rate, the holding of the 2013 elections without Gundayao being in the ballot for the position he aspired for has left his petition bereft of any practical value. In other words, his success in this recourse would not undo the questioned action of the COMELEC and revive his candidacy. The petition for certiorari has been meanwhile rendered moot and academic, and should be dismissed. A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties, or where no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of the case. 13
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari, without pronouncement on costs of suit." Brion, J., on leave. (adv19)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 4.
2. Id. at 19-24.
3. Id. at 64.
4. Id. at 6.
5. Id. at 25-28.
6. Id. at 71-77.
7. Id. at 8.
8. Id. at 10.
9. Section 69. — The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
10. Section 4. Motu proprio cases. — The Commission may, at any time before the election, motu proprio, declare a candidate as a nuisance candidate subject to an opportunity to be heard.
11. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 168498, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 213, 218; Batongbakal v. Zafra, G.R. No. 141806, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 399, 410; Legarda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94457, 16 October 1997, 280 SCRA 642, 657.
12. Bautista v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998, 298 SCRA 480, 486 citing National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (4th Division), G.R. No. 123520, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 348, 354.
13. Tantoy, Sr. v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 156128, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 301, 305.