EN BANC
[G.R. No. 257339. June 21, 2022.][Formerly UDK 16921]
ANTONIO BELLO VIERNES, petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RODERICK ATMOSFERA and ROVELYN ECHAVE VILLAMOR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JUNE 21, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257339 [Formerly UDK 16921] (Antonio Bello Viernes v. Commission on Elections, Roderick Atmosfera and Rovelyn Echave Villamor). — This Court resolves a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Antonio Bello Viernes (Viernes) against respondents Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Roderick Atmosfera (Atmosfera) and Rovelyn Echave Villamor (Villamor), seeking the nullification of the Order 2 dated May 18, 2021 of the COMELEC En Banc in SPA No. 18-182 (DC), the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Ex-Parte Urgent Motion for Issuance of Amended Writ of Execution filed by Antonio Bello Viernes is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 3
The Antecedents
Viernes and Villamor filed their respective Certificates of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Mayor of Lagangilang, Abra during the May 2019 elections. On November 12, 2018, Viernes filed a Petition 4 under Section 78 5 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), seeking to cancel the COC of Villamor. Viernes claimed that Villamor had falsely represented her eligibility in her COC as she was allegedly a naturalized American citizen. 6
In her Verified Answer 7 dated December 7, 2018, Villamor argued that she duly and timely complied with the requirements of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 8 and Administrative Order No. 91, Series of 2004, in order to reacquire her Philippine citizenship and to qualify as a candidate for an elective public office in the Philippines. 9 She averred that she correctly declared her period of residency in the Philippines as 36 years and 8 months, and that her stay in the United States (US) had already been deducted. 10 She further maintained that the COMELEC does not have jurisdiction to deny due course to, or cancel her COC, since there is no prior authoritative declaration against her that she is not qualified to run for the office she seeks to be elected to. 11
On April 26, 2019, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution, 12 the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (Second Division) RESOLVES to GRANT the petition filed by ANTONIO BELLO VIERNES. Accordingly, the Certificate of Candidacy of ROVELYN ECHAVE VILLAMOR is hereby CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED.13
While the COMELEC Second Division found that Villamor did not commit false material representation in her COC when she stated that she is a Filipino citizen, she committed false material representation when she stated that she had been a resident of Lagangilang, Abra for 36 years and 8 months before the date of the elections. The COMELEC Second Division explained that Villamor failed to present proof as to when she started to become a resident of Lagangilang after she had abandoned her US domicile. 14 This merited a motion for reconsideration filed by Villamor.
During the election, Villamor received the highest number of votes. On May 14, 2019, she was proclaimed as the winning candidate for Mayor of Lagangilang, Abra. 15
On November 4, 2019, Atmosfera filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention. 16 He averred that he had just been proclaimed as the winning candidate for Vice Mayor and for purposes of succession, he is entitled to assume the position of Mayor in case of a permanent vacancy in the Office of the Mayor pursuant to Section 44 of R.A. No. 7160. 17
On November 27, 2019, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution 18 on the Motion for Reconsideration 19 dated May 4, 2019 of Villamor, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES, to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration. The Resolution dated 26 April 2019 by the Commission (Second Division) is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.20
The Resolution dated November 27, 2019 became final and executory pursuant to the Certificate of Finality 21 dated December 12, 2019, which the COMELEC issued.
Aggrieved, Villamor challenged the Resolution dated November 27, 2019 through a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with this Court docketed as G.R. No. 250370.
Meanwhile, upon motion, 22 the COMELEC issued a Writ of Execution 23 on January 20, 2020, the pertinent portion of which reads:
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby DIRECTED to immediately implement this Writ of Execution by serving a copy hereof together with the certified true copy of the Resolutions of the Second Division, and of the En Banc, of this Commission, dated 26 April 2019 and 27 November 2019, respectively, upon respondent ROVELYN ECHAVE VILLAMOR and to submit a return of service thereof to the Clerk of the Commission.
Finally, the Clerk of the Commission is likewise directed to furnish a copy of the 26 April Second Division Resolution and 27 November En Banc Resolution to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan for Lagangilang, Abra and affected parties.
This supersedes all writs or orders previously issued, if any.
SO ORDERED. 24
Viernes filed an Ex-Parte Urgent Motion for Issuance of Amended Writ of Execution 25 praying inter alia that the COMELEC: (a) annul the invalid proclamation of Villamor as Mayor; and (b) direct the immediate constitution of a Special Municipal Board of Canvassers who will proclaim Viernes as the duly elected Mayor for being the sole candidate who garnered the highest number of votes. 26
On February 4, 2020, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission (Commission) received a Notice from the Clerk of Court of this Court, informing the COMELEC of a Resolution dated January 15, 2020, the pertinent portion of which states:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 15, 2020, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 250370 (Mayor Rovelyn Echave Villamor vs. Commission on Elections and Antonio Bello Viernes). Acting on the Most Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and/or Status Quo Ante Order and/or Injunction and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction), the Court Resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to REQUIRE the respondents to COMMENT on both the petition and prayer for TRO within ten (10) days from notice hereof. 27
xxx xxx xxx.
The law department of the COMELEC issued a memorandum stating that the Commission cannot issue an amended writ of execution because the Resolution of the Commission became final and executory when no restraining order was issued and a petition for certiorari and prohibition is currently pending before this Court. 28
In an Order 29 dated May 18, 2021, the COMELEC En Banc resolved to deny Viernes' Ex-Parte Urgent Motion for Issuance of Amended Writ of Execution. 30 In denying the motion, the COMELEC En Banc explained that upon the issuance of a Certificate of Finality and the corresponding Writ of Execution on December 12, 2019, and January 20, 2020, respectively, the decisions of the COMELEC Second Division and En Banc have become final and executory and cannot be modified through Viernes' motion. 31 Moreover, taking into consideration the sub judice rule, the COMELEC En Banc found it improper to grant the motion while there is a pending petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Villamor in this Court docketed as G.R. No. 250370. 32
Hence, in this petition, 33 Viernes maintains that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied his motion for issuance of amended writ of execution or motion for clarification despite its ruling in cancelling Villamor's COC. 34 Viernes insists that he was the only remaining eligible candidate during the May 13, 2019 elections because Villamor's void COC produced no legal effect. Viernes adds that even if Villamor received the highest number of votes, these are now considered stray votes and would not validate her material misrepresentation that resulted in the cancellation of her COC. Viernes posits that he is entitled to the position of Mayor instead of Vice Mayor Atmosfera. 35 He also claims that the COMELEC can amend the writ of execution without violating the rule on immutability of judgment and sub judice rule. 36
In her Comment 37 dated January 3, 2022, Villamor maintains inter alia that the COMELEC En Banc's Resolution dated November 27, 2019 affirming the COMELEC Second Division's Resolution dated April 26, 2019, did not attain finality since it was timely elevated to this Court and substantial justice warrants the exemption from the application of the doctrine of immutability of judgments. 38 She also contends that her right to due process of law was violated when her COC was cancelled on a ground not originally alleged in the petition to deny due course to her COC. 39 She avers that the allegation of material misrepresentation in the COC to disqualify her must specifically state the portion or statement allegedly misrepresented, thus, she may be given a reasonable opportunity to defend herself. 40 She also insists that she was able to substantially establish her residence and domicile of choice in Lagangilang, Abra. 41 Finally, she adds that Viernes failed to show a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. 42
Meanwhile, in its Comment 43 dated February 2, 2022, the COMELEC argued that the issues raised in the present petition have become moot and academic in view of the ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 250370, thereby rendering the assailed Order dated May 18, 2021 of no practical use or value. For the COMELEC, it was unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion regarding the propriety of the issuance of an amended writ of execution to modify a final judgment and the proclamation of Villamor as the winning candidate despite the cancellation of her COC, as these are now moot issues. 44
Issue
The issue in this petition is whether the challenge on the propriety of the COMELEC En Banc's denial of Viernes' ex-parte urgent motion for issuance of amended writ of execution and the propriety of Villamor's proclamation have been rendered moot and academic by this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 250370 upholding the validity of Villamor's COC and declaring her as the winning candidate.
Our Ruling
The petition must be dismissed for being moot and academic.
The elements for judicial review are: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy; (2) it must be ripe for adjudication; (3) the person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to sue; (4) the question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity; and (5) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. 45
The requisite of actual case or controversy entails 'a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical, or abstract difference, or dispute.' 46 The issue raised must be definite and concrete and affect legal relations of parties with adverse interests. 47 It must also be demonstrated that there is grave abuse of discretion in the assailed governmental act in the context of actual, not merely theoretical, facts. 48
The right sought to be enforced through the exercise of judicial review is inherently related to the doctrine of mootness. A case or controversy becomes moot and academic when:
x x x it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 49
Nevertheless, the mootness of the case does not automatically prevent this Court from resolving it. In Prof. David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo, 50 this Court recognized that '[t]he 'moot and academic' principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case.' 51 This Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule on mootness, which include the following:
first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 52
In the present case, the element of actual case or controversy is lacking, and the aforementioned exceptions to the rule on mootness are not present to justify the resolution of the case on the merits despite the moot and academic issues raised. To rule on the propriety of the assailed Order of the COMELEC En Banc and the proclamation of Villamor as the winning candidate, at this stage of the proceedings, would serve no practical value to the parties.
As aptly pointed out by the COMELEC in its Comment, the issues in this petition have been rendered moot and academic by this Court's Resolution dated October 5, 2021 in G.R. No. 250370, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated 26 April 2019 and 27 November 2019 issued by the Commission on Elections Second Division and En Banc, respectively, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition to Deny Due Course/Cancel Certificate of Candidacy filed by private respondent Antonio Bello Viernes is DISMISSED.
This Resolution is immediately executory.53 (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
This Court ruled in G.R. No. 250370 that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the cancellation of Villamor's COC without any prior determination of whether she had intended to deceive or mislead the electorate. This Court stressed that a false representation under Section 78 of the OEC must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact, which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. Its commission must be accompanied with a malicious intent to deceive the electorate as to the potential candidate's qualifications for public office. Based from the Congressional deliberations of the OEC, this Court held that the lawmakers contemplated Section 78 of the OEC to cover COC's filed in bad faith to restrict the power granted to the COMELEC. Thus, intent to deceive in Section 78 of the OEC is an integral element of material misrepresentation. 54
In G.R. No. 250370, this Court considered Villamor not in bad faith, since she never hid the fact of her naturalization as an American citizen, or the date when she renounced it. Moreover, in disclosing her residency, she excluded the period of her stay in the US, negating the existence of bad faith and supporting the view that the statement was a mere error or mistake on a difficult question of law concerning residency. 55
This Court also found sufficient proof in G.R. No. 250370 to support Villamor's claim that she had reestablished residence in the Philippines after her naturalization as a US citizen in 2009. Apart from her acquisition of properties in Lagangilang and payment of taxes, this Court also considered her registration and participation as a voter in the May 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections that was not challenged on the ground of failure to meet the residency requirement. This Court concluded that given Villamor's compliance with the six months minimum residence requirement for voting purposes during the May 2018 elections, her period of residency for purposes of being a mayoralty candidate in the subsequent 2019 elections would satisfy the one year residency requirement. 56
Giving due course to the present petition would necessarily entail a revisit of this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 250370 particularly the discussion settling the issue on the COMELEC's failure to stay Villamor's proclamation despite finding her ineligible. This Court already declared in G.R. No. 250370, this lapse to be inconsistent with the COMELEC's finding that Villamor was ineligible for failing to meet the residency requirement as it should not have allowed her to be proclaimed and assume the position of Mayor if it truly believed that she did not possess the requisite qualifications for the position. This Court already emphasized that, given the nature and the public interest involved, election cases must be resolved speedily, otherwise, the will of the electorate would be frustrated. This Court likewise reminded the COMELEC of the importance of resolving matters before it, with all deliberate haste, because time is of the essence in election cases. 57 Therefore, the central issues sought to be addressed in this petition had been overtaken by events. The supervening Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 250370 rendered the present petition, moot and academic.
Considering that the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 250370 is immediately executory, no condition will prevent or stay its execution. The binding effect of the Resolution on the parties is instant. After all, by their nature, election cases are time-bound.
Lastly, this Court's resolution on the merits in G.R. No. 250370 is consistent with underlying public policy and objective in election cases. It puts to rest the election dispute and gives a sense of stability for the people of the Municipality of Lagangilang, Abra, who deserve efficient and reliable public service.
In view of the foregoing, this Court deems it proper to dismiss the present petition.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic." Inting and Kho, Jr., JJ., no part. (17)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, (Vol. 1), pp. 12-38.
2. Issued by Chairman Sheriff M. Abas, Commissioners Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Aimee P. Ferolino-Ampoloquio; id. at 46-52.
3. Id. at 52.
4. Id. at 92-101.
5. Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
6. Rollo, (Vol. 1), pp. 96-99.
7. Id. at 110-119.
8. Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.
9. Rollo, (Vol. 1), pp. 115-117.
10. Id. at 117.
11. Id. at 117-118.
12. Issued by Presiding Commissioner Luie Tito F. Guia, Commissioners Socorro B. Inting, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a member of this court); id. at 67-78.
13. Id. at 77.
14. Id. at 74-77.
15. Id. at 292.
16. Id. at 248-252.
17. Section 44, R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, states:
SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. —
(a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice-governor, mayor, or vice-mayor, the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall become the governor, vice-governor, mayor or vice-mayor, as the case may be. Subsequent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ranking as defined herein.
(b) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the punong barangay, the highest ranking sanggunian barangay member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall become the punong barangay.
(c) A tie between or among the highest ranking sanggunian members shall be resolved by the drawing of lots.
(d) The successors as defined herein shall serve only the unexpired terms of their predecessors. For purposes of this Chapter, a permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.
For purposes of succession as provided in this Chapter, ranking in the sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each district in the immediately preceding local election.
18. Issued by Chairman Sheriff M. Abas, Commissioners Al A. Parreno, Luie Tito F. Guia, Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, and Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a member of this Court); rollo, (Vol. 1), pp. 60-64.
19. Id. at 199-213.
20. Id. at 64.
21. Id. at 79-81.
22. Id. at 83-86.
23. Id. at 89-91.
24. Id. at 90-91.
25. Id. at 53-58.
26. Id. at 56-57.
27. Id. at 48.
28. Id. at 48-49.
29. Issued by Chairman Sheriff M. Abas, Commissioners Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Aimee P. Ferolino-Ampoloquio; id. at 46-52.
30. Id. at 52.
31. Id. at 50.
32. Id. at 50-51.
33. Id. at 12-38.
34. Id. at 24-25.
35. Id. at 29-31.
36. Id. at 33-37.
37. Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 1078-1102.
38. Id. at 1085-1089.
39. Id. at 1089-1092.
40. Id. at 1092-1093.
41. Id. at 1093-1096.
42. Id. at 1096-1098.
43. Id. at 1109-1120.
44. Id. at 1113-1117.
45. Calleja v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 252578, 252579, 252580, 252585, 252613, 252623, 252624, 252646, 252702, 252726, 252733, 252736, 252741, 252747, 252755, 252759, 252765, 252767, 252768, 16663, 252802, 252809, 252903, 252904, 252905, 252916, 252921, 252984, 253018, 253100, 253118, 253124, 253242, 253252, 253254, 254191 & 253420, December 7, 2021.
46. Supra, citing Ocampo v. Enriquez, 798 Phil. 227, 288 (2016).
47. Id., citing Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 3, 2019.
48. Id., citing Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc., (AMCOW) v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. 116, 141 (2016).
49. Penafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014).
50. 522 Phil. 705 (2006).
51. Id. at 754. (Citations omitted)
52. Id.
53. Villamor v. Viernes, G.R. No. 250370 (Resolution), October 5, 2021.
54. Id.
55. Id.
56. Id.
57. Id.