GR 182380; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182380; August 28, 2009
ROBERT P. GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MAYOR RANDOLPH S. TING AND SALVACION GARCIA, Respondents.
FACTS
On March 31, 2004, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tuguegarao City authorized Mayor Randolph Ting to acquire two parcels of land for use as a public cemetery. Pursuant to this, Mayor Ting purchased the lots, and City Treasurer Salvacion Garcia issued Treasury Warrant No. 0001534514 dated April 20, 2004, amounting to P8,486,027.00 as payment. The transaction was completed and new titles were issued in the city’s name on May 5, 2004.
Petitioner Robert Guzman filed a criminal complaint against Ting and Garcia for violating Section 261(v) and (w) of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibit the release of public funds and undertaking of public works during the 45-day election ban period preceding an election (March 26 to May 9, 2004). The COMELEC en banc dismissed the complaint, ruling that the mere acquisition of land for a cemetery did not constitute “public works” under the ban, and thus the treasury warrant issuance was not a violation.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the petition for certiorari was premature for lack of a prior motion for reconsideration; (2) whether the land acquisition fell under the prohibition on “public works”; and (3) whether the issuance of the treasury warrant violated the ban on disbursing public funds.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. On procedural grounds, the Court held the petition was not premature. A motion for reconsideration is dispensable when the issue is purely legal, the ruling is a patent nullity, or urgency exists. Here, the COMELEC’s dismissal was based on a clear misinterpretation of law, constituting grave abuse of discretion, thus allowing a direct certiorari action.
On the substantive issues, the Court ruled that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. First, the acquisition of land for a public cemetery is intrinsically part of “public works.” The Court adopted a broad interpretation, defining public works as “fixed works for public use,” which includes the procurement of land for a public purpose like a cemetery. This acquisition is the foundational step in a public works project. Second, the issuance of the treasury warrant during the ban period unequivocally violated Section 261(w) of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits any disbursement of public funds for any public works project. The COMELEC’s exoneration of the respondents, based on an erroneous and restrictive definition, was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The case was remanded to the COMELEC for appropriate action.