G.R. No. L-22610; June 30, 1966
Primitivo P. Quiem, petitioner and appellant, vs. Jesus Seriña, Vice-Mayor of Cagayan de Oro City, in his capacity as presiding officer of the Municipal Board, Pio I. Roa, Augusto Neri, Alejandro Velez, Blas Velez, Fernando Pacana, Jr., Cecilio Luminarias and Filomeno Raypon, all members of the Municipal Board of Cagayan de Oro City, Justiniano R. Borja, City of Cagayan de Oro and Anastacio Abas, respondents and appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Primitivo P. Quiem and respondent Anastacio Abas were contenders for City Secretary in an election held by the Municipal Board of Cagayan de Oro City on January 2, 1964. In a secret ballot, three councilors voted for Quiem, three for Abas, and one councilor cast a blank ballot (abstained). Due to the tie, Vice-Mayor Jesus Seriña, the presiding officer, voted for Quiem, who then took his oath of office. The following day, Abas challenged the validity of Quiem’s election, and City Mayor Justiniano R. Borja refused to recognize Quiem. The Board held special meetings to resolve the protest but reached no decision. On January 10, Quiem filed a petition for prohibition with a preliminary injunction to restrain the Board from conducting another balloting. The court issued a preliminary injunction. On January 30, 1964, after a preliminary hearing, the court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the petition. Quiem appealed. Meanwhile, on February 24, 1964, the Board proceeded to elect a secretary, and Abas received five affirmative votes and was declared duly elected, thereafter performing the functions of secretary.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner was denied due process.
2. Whether the Vice-Mayor of Cagayan de Oro City is a member of the Municipal Board.
3. Whether the Vice-Mayor may vote in the selection of the city secretary.
4. Whether petitioner was validly elected as city secretary by obtaining four votes (including the Vice-Mayor’s) out of eight elective board members.

RULING

1. No, petitioner was not denied due process. The court held that the familiar safeguards of notice, hearing, and opportunity to present his side were fully accorded. The parties were heard for several hours, and petitioner, represented by lawyers, did not offer to present any evidence. The issue raised was purely legal—whether petitioner had a cause of action given the undisputed facts of the election and vote tally. A preliminary hearing on the affirmative defense of lack of cause of action was properly conducted.
2. Yes, the Vice-Mayor of Cagayan de Oro City is a member of the Municipal Board. The city’s original charter (Republic Act 521) and its amendatory law (Republic Act 1325) expressly provide that the Vice-Mayor “shall be a member of the Municipal Board.” The later law (Republic Act 2259), which made the Vice-Mayor the presiding officer, did not repeal these provisions, as implied repeals are not favored and there is no plain indication from Congress that the Vice-Mayor ceased to be a member.
3. Yes, the Vice-Mayor may vote in the selection of the city secretary. As a member of the Board, the Vice-Mayor is entitled to vote. The charter does not withhold this right, unlike the Manila charter which explicitly limits the Vice-Mayor’s vote to tie-breaking. The case of Bagaso vs. Tumangan is controlling, holding that the Vice-Mayor may exercise his right to vote as a member on any proposed ordinance, resolution, or motion.
4. No, petitioner was not validly elected. Section 5 of Republic Act 2259 requires that the city secretary “shall be elected by majority vote of the elective city council or municipal board.” The elective board consists of eight members (the Vice-Mayor and seven councilors). A majority of the elective board means at least five votes. Petitioner received only four votes (three councilors plus the Vice-Mayor), which is not a majority of the eight-member elective board. Therefore, there was a failure of election on January 2. The subsequent election of respondent Abas with five votes was valid.