G.R. No. 148075 . February 4, 2002.
PANGKAT LAGUNA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and TERESITA “NINGNING” LAZARO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Teresita Lazaro, then Vice-Governor of Laguna, assumed the governorship by succession on January 30, 2001. On February 28, 2001, she filed her certificate of candidacy for Governor in the May 2001 elections. Petitioner Pangkat Laguna, a political party, filed a disqualification petition before the COMELEC, alleging Lazaro engaged in premature campaigning under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. The petition specifically cited her alleged order for the purchase and distribution of sports equipment and medals to schools in February 2001, purportedly to promote her candidacy before the campaign period. It also alleged she violated Section 261(v) of the Code by conducting the bidding for 79 public works projects on March 28, 2001, within the 45-day prohibitive period before the election.
The COMELEC Second Division granted the disqualification petition on May 11, 2001. However, the COMELEC en banc, upon Lazaro’s motion for reconsideration, reversed the Division’s ruling in a Resolution dated May 24, 2001. Lazaro was subsequently proclaimed the elected Governor. Pangkat Laguna assailed the en banc Resolution via certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the disqualification of Teresita Lazaro?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the COMELEC en banc Resolution. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the COMELEC are accorded great weight and finality and are conclusive in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. On the charge of premature campaigning, the Court held that Lazaro’s acts as Governor in purchasing and distributing items for local sports and education programs did not constitute the election campaign or partisan political activity proscribed by Section 80. The acts were performed in her official capacity as local chief executive.
Regarding the alleged violation of the 45-day public works ban under Section 261(v), the Court ruled that the mere conduct of a public bidding on March 28, 2001, does not by itself constitute a violation. The law explicitly prohibits the release, disbursement, or expenditure of public funds for public works within the prohibitive period. Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that any public funds were actually released, disbursed, or expended as a consequence of that bidding during the banned period. Absent such proof, the COMELEC’s factual finding that no violation occurred must be sustained.