GR 127066; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127066 March 11, 1997
REYNALDO O. MALONZO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY (Caloocan Chapter) and ALEX L. DAVID, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Reynaldo O. Malonzo was the duly elected Mayor of Caloocan City. Barely a year into his term, a majority of the members of the city’s Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA), composed of Punong Barangays, Sangguniang Barangay members, and Sangguniang Kabataan chairmen, convened on July 7, 1996. The assembly adopted PRA Resolution No. 01-96, expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo and initiating recall proceedings. This resolution was filed with the COMELEC.
Mayor Malonzo filed a petition with the COMELEC, challenging the recall process as deficient in form and substance, particularly questioning the propriety of the service of notices to PRA members and the conduct of the assembly. The COMELEC dismissed his petition, found the proceedings in order, and set the recall election for December 14, 1996. Malonzo then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Office of the Solicitor General, in its comment, suggested the matter of the veracity of notices to certain PRA members required further COMELEC determination.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the recall resolution and setting the recall election.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC resolution. The legal logic centered on the standard of review and substantial compliance with recall procedures under the Local Government Code. The Court held that factual findings of administrative agencies like the COMELEC, which possesses specialized expertise, are accorded great respect and are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. The COMELEC, through its Election Records and Statistics Department, had already investigated and validated the service of notices and the PRA proceedings.
The Court found that the recall initiation complied with the fundamental statutory requirements: a session was called in a public place, attended by a majority of all PRA members, and the recall resolution was adopted by a majority of all such members. The law does not prescribe an elaborate procedure beyond these core requisites. Malonzo’s allegations of graft, violence, and irregularities during the PRA session were largely uncorroborated and insufficient to overturn the COMELEC’s substantiated findings. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands unless rebutted by strong evidence, which was absent here. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion attended the COMELEC’s actions. The Court ordered the COMELEC to set a new date for the recall election within thirty days.