SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205064. April 1, 2013.]
DOMICIANO R. LAURENA, IV, ESTER A. LAZARO, ADRIAN H. QUERO, DIOSDADO S. PALAGANAS, BENJAMIN M. PASCUA, JR., DOMICIANO R. LAURENA, JR., AND THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR OWN BEHALVES, petitioners, vs. EFREN L. ALVAREZ, THE HONORABLE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, UNDERSECRETARY AND ATTY. RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), AND, THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL/OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 April 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 205064 Domiciano R. Laurena, IV, Ester A. Lazaro, Adrian H. Quero, Diosdado S. Palaganas, Benjamin M. Pascua, Jr., Domiciano R. Laurena, Jr., and the People, in their own Behalves, petitioners v. Efren L. Alvarez, The Honorable First Division of the Supreme Court, Undersecretary and Atty. Rafael Antonio M. Santos, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and, the Office of the Solicitor General/Office of the Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman, respondents. aACEID
RESOLUTION
Respondent Efren Alvarez, former mayor of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 by the Sandiganbayan for awarding a contract for the construction of a shopping mall in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija under the BOT scheme to an unlicensed contractor.
This Court, in a Decision dated 29 June 2011 docketed as G.R. No. 192591 affirmed the Decision of the Sandiganbayan. On 30 July 2012, this Court issued a Resolution denying with finality a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent. An entry of judgment and letter of transmittal to the Sandiganbayan were made on 13 September 2012.
On 22 October 2012, this Court issued a Resolution in G.R. No. 192591: 1) granting respondent's Motion for Leave to File and Admit his Motion to Refer the Case to the Court En Banc with Second Motion for reconsideration; 2) granting respondent's Motion to Refer the Case to the Court En Banc with Second Motion for Reconsideration; and 3) granting respondent's Manifestation and Motion to Lift the Entry of Judgment. The case was referred to the Court En Banc.
On 22 January 2013, petitioners filed the instant petition for quo warranto and the declaration of absolute nullity of the proceedings taken in the Supreme Court First Division after the Decision in G.R. No. 192591 had become final and executory, as well as the issuance by the Office of Undersecretary for Finance of the DILG recognizing respondent's re-assumption into office as City Mayor.
Petitioners here pray for the issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order to place petitioner Ester Lazaro to the position of City Mayor of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija and to restrain respondent from interfering with the position of the City Mayor.
On 28 January 2013, this Court's Second Division resolved to consolidate the instant case with G.R. No. 192591. 1 HEITAD
On 29 January 2013, the Court En Banc acting on G.R. No. 192521 issued a Resolution 1) denying the referral of the case by the First Division and 2) referring back to the First Division the a) the Motion for Reconsideration, b) letter of Atty. Domiciano Laurena, c) Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Comment on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, and d) Aforesaid Comment/Opposition. 2
On 6 February 2013, this Court's First Division in G.R. No. 192591 denied with Finality the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by Efren Alvarez and prohibited the filing of further pleadings.
On 19 February 2013, petitioners filed in this case a Motion to Resolve/Decide with Motion to Admit Supplement, with the Supplement Incorporated.
On 5 March 2013, the Court En Banc denied the transfer of this case to the Court En Banc, deconsolidated this case from G.R. No. 192591 in view of the denial therein of the Second Motion for Reconsideration, and referred this case back to the Second Division. 3
Respondent seeks to reclaim the position of city mayor on the basis of the Court's Resolution on 22 October 2012 which granted his Motion for Leave to Admit the Second Motion for Reconsideration and his Manifestation and Motion to Lift the Entry of Judgment. On 6 February 2013, however, the Court denied with finality the Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent. Accordingly, an entry of judgment has been issued.
An action for quo warranto is filed against one who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. 4
The concomitant issue of whether respondent has the right to hold office has been resolved with the denial of the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent's conviction by final judgment disqualifies him perpetually from holding any public office, or from being selected to any public office. This perpetual disqualification takes effect upon the finality of the judgment of conviction. Hence, it is beyond dispute that respondent cannot anymore hold office or reclaim his position as city mayor.
It is precisely the absence of any right on the part of respondent to hold office as city mayor as determined by this Court that renders this petition for quo warranto moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto is declared MOOT and ACADEMIC. (Per Special Order No. 1437 dated 25 March 2013, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. is designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe). CcSEIH
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 81-82.
2.Id. at 79-80.
3.Id. at 109-110.
4.Moro v. Del Castillo, Jr., G.R. No. 184980, 30 March 2011, 646 SCRA 763, 766-767.