G.R. No. 133927 November 29, 1999
MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ATTY. DAN RESTOR, respondents, RICARDO QUINTOS, necessary respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa was a candidate for Representative of Occidental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 elections. In her certificate of candidacy, she declared her nickname as “JTV.” Private respondent Atty. Dan Restor filed a letter-petition with the COMELEC on April 20, 1998, seeking to invalidate the use of “JTV” on the ground that petitioner was publicly known as “Girlie,” and that “JTV” were the initials of her husband, former Congressman Jose Tapales Villarosa. The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution on election day, May 11, 1998, granting Restor’s petition and disallowing the use of “JTV,” ordering election officers to consider votes for “JTV” as invalid.
Petitioner received a fax copy of this Resolution at 5:32 p.m. on May 11, after voting had ceased and canvassing had begun. She filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration the next day, which the COMELEC en banc denied on May 13, 1998. Petitioner was later proclaimed the duly elected Representative. The petition assails the COMELEC Resolutions, arguing grave abuse of discretion for lack of due process, among other grounds.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolutions dated May 11 and May 13, 1998, which disallowed petitioner’s use of the nickname “JTV” in her certificate of candidacy.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the assailed COMELEC Resolutions. The core legal flaw was the blatant violation of petitioner’s right to due process. It was uncontested that petitioner received notice of the letter-petition and the adverse Resolution only after its issuance. The COMELEC resolved the matter based solely on the allegations in Restor’s letter-petition without affording Villarosa any opportunity to be heard or to present countervailing evidence. Due process fundamentally requires both notice and hearing before an adjudicatory body renders a decision that adversely affects a party’s rights.
The COMELEC’s attempt to cure this defect by denying her subsequent Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration was insufficient. That pleading was primarily a notice of appearance and receipt of the Resolution, expressly reserving her right to file a supplemental motion as her counsel was occupied. It did not substantively set forth her arguments for reconsideration. Under these circumstances, the denial did not constitute a valid hearing that could remedy the initial deprivation. The Court also found the COMELEC’s action procedurally irregular, as the letter-petition, which sought the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy, was a matter required by its own rules of procedure to be heard by a Division, not the Commission en banc. The precipitate resolution on election day, based on an ex parte submission, constituted an arbitrary exercise of power amounting to grave abuse of discretion.