GR 55938; (June, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55938 June 26, 1981
JORY F. FADERANGA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed a petition with the COMELEC on January 18, 1980, seeking the disqualification of petitioners as candidates for local offices in Banton, Romblon, alleging they changed party affiliation from KBL to NP within six months before the election. The petition remained pending during the election. Petitioners won and were proclaimed on January 31, 1980. The COMELEC’s telegram ordering suspension of proclamation was received only after the proclamation. On February 28, 1980, the COMELEC denied the disqualification petition for insufficient evidence, leading to a second proclamation of petitioners on March 3, 1980, after which they assumed office.
Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. On December 29, 1980, the COMELEC reversed its earlier resolution and granted the motion for reconsideration, disqualifying petitioners. This prompted the petitioners to file the present certiorari and mandamus proceeding, arguing that the COMELEC’s reversal constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in reopening and granting the disqualification petition after the petitioners had been proclaimed and had assumed office.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullifying the COMELEC’s December 29, 1980 resolution. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine established in Venezuela v. Commission on Elections and consistently reiterated in subsequent cases. Once a candidate has been duly proclaimed and has assumed office, a pre-proclamation controversy, such as a petition for disqualification based on change of party affiliation, can no longer be pursued before the COMELEC. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file either a regular election protest or a quo warranto proceeding in the appropriate forum.
The Court emphasized that the proclamation of petitioners on March 3, 1980, after the COMELEC’s initial denial of the disqualification, had attained finality for the purposes of pre-proclamation matters. To allow the COMELEC to reverse itself months later, after petitioners had assumed their duties, would disrupt the stability of local governance and contravene settled jurisprudence. The COMELEC’s action amounted to a grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners’ right to continue in office is affirmed, but without prejudice to private respondents filing an election protest or quo warranto action within fifteen days from notice of the decision.