G.R. No. L-52791 February 26, 1981
ANTONIO AGCAOILI, JR., petitioner, vs. MANUEL B. SANTOS and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio Agcaoili, Jr. and private respondent Manuel B. Santos were candidates for Vice Mayor of Laoag City in the January 30, 1980 elections. Santos was proclaimed elected by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on February 1, 1980. Agcaoili filed this petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court on February 29, 1980, seeking to restrain Santos from taking his oath of office scheduled for the first Monday of March. Agcaoili alleged that Santos was ineligible and disqualified under constitutional and statutory provisions for changing his political party affiliation within six months of the election, arguing all votes cast for Santos should be counted in his favor as the official KBL candidate.
The Court, in a resolution dated March 4, 1980, required the parties to state whether the case had become moot. Private respondent Santos confirmed he had taken his oath and assumed office on March 1, 1980. The Solicitor General, representing COMELEC, commented that the petition to restrain the oath-taking was thereby rendered moot. Petitioner Agcaoili, however, contended the case was not moot as the core issue of disqualification based on party-switching remained unresolved and should be acted upon by COMELEC.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the petition for prohibition seeking to disqualify a candidate based on a change of political party affiliation, filed after the election and the candidate’s proclamation and assumption of office.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the established judicial policy regarding the timeliness of raising disqualification cases based on party-switching under the 1978 Election Code. The Court, citing its precedent in Aguinaldo v. Commission on Elections, reiterated the principle that a petition to disqualify a candidate on this specific ground, filed after the election and the candidate’s proclamation, should be dismissed. Such dismissal is without prejudice to the petitioner pursuing the disqualification issue through the proper post-election remedies of an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding filed in the competent court or agency.
The Court clarified that this ruling does not diminish the mandatory nature of the disqualification provision, as held in Reyes v. Commission on Elections. It merely delineates the appropriate procedural avenue. Since the petitioner filed this action after the January 30, 1980 election and after respondent’s proclamation, the remedy of a pre-proclamation controversy before the Supreme Court was no longer available. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition but granted petitioner a period of ten days from receipt of the decision to file either an election protest or a quo warranto action based on disqualification.