AM 13 04 03 SC; (December, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 13-04-03-SC, December 10, 2013
RE: ALLEGED NULLITY OF THE ELECTION OF IBP SOUTHERN LUZON GOVERNOR VICENTE M. JOYAS AS IBP EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
FACTS
This consolidated administrative matter stemmed from motions filed by IBP Governor for Western Visayas, Atty. Marlou B. Ubano. The first motion (A.M. No. 13-04-03-SC) sought to nullify the IBP Board of Governors’ resolution approving Atty. Lynda Chaguile as the replacement for IBP Northern Luzon Governor Denis B. Habawel. Ubano argued the Board’s act was ultra vires, as the IBP By-Laws vested the power to fill such a vacancy in the regional delegates, not the Board. He also contended no vacancy yet existed since Habawel was still present.
The second motion (A.M. No. 13-05-08-SC) sought to nullify the May 22, 2013 election of IBP Southern Luzon Governor Vicente M. Joyas as Executive Vice President (EVP). Ubano alleged the election was invalid because Joyas, whose term as Regional Governor was set to expire on June 30, 2013, was ineligible to vote for himself under the IBP By-Laws. He argued that an officer whose term is about to expire cannot participate in an election for a future term, as they hold office in a hold-over capacity and lack a present right to the office.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the election of Atty. Vicente M. Joyas as IBP Executive Vice President was valid, considering his status as a hold-over officer at the time of the election.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the election. The Court clarified the legal nature of a hold-over officer. An incumbent who continues to discharge the duties of an office beyond the fixed term, without a new appointment or election, is considered a de jure officer holding in a hold-over capacity. This status is a lawful continuation of the original term, not a new term, and is recognized to prevent a hiatus in public service.
Consequently, Atty. Joyas remained the de jure Governor for Southern Luzon during the hold-over period. He therefore possessed all the rights and prerogatives of the office, including the right to vote in the election for EVP. The IBP By-Laws grant each sitting Regional Governor a vote in the election of the EVP. Since his hold-over status was a legitimate extension of his tenure, his participation and self-vote were legally permissible. The Court found no provision in the IBP By-Laws or jurisprudence that strips a hold-over officer of the right to exercise the functions of the office, including voting rights. The election was conducted in accordance with the rules, and the challenge based on his hold-over status was without merit.