G.R. No. L-52451, L-52678, L-53393. March 31, 1981.
Zacarias A. Ticzon vs. Commission on Elections, et al.

FACTS

In the San Pablo City mayoral election of January 30, 1980, petitioner Zacarias A. Ticzon (NP) and intervenor Cesar P. Dizon (KBL) were candidates. Prior to the election, both faced disqualification cases for alleged political turncoatism before the COMELEC. After the election, Dizon filed a petition with COMELEC alleging massive disenfranchisement, vote-buying, and tampered returns. On February 1, 1980, COMELEC issued a directive suspending the canvass for city positions. Ticzon challenged this directive before the Supreme Court via certiorari.
On February 5, 1980, the Supreme Court issued a Restraining Order, directing COMELEC to cease enforcing its suspension directive and ordering the city board of canvassers to proceed with the canvass. Despite being served this order on February 6, COMELEC subsequently replaced the original board of canvassers, transferred the canvassing venue to Manila, and ordered a recanvass. Crucially, on February 12, 1980, COMELEC disqualified Ticzon for turncoatism without a full-dress hearing, ordered the votes for him considered stray, and directed the proclamation of the remaining candidate. Dizon was proclaimed winner on February 15, 1980.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted in violation of the Supreme Court’s Restraining Order and applicable election laws by disqualifying Ticzon and proclaiming Dizon while the Court’s order to canvass was in effect.

RULING

The dissenting opinion, as articulated by Justice Melencio-Herrera, voted to grant the petitions and set aside Dizon’s proclamation. The legal logic is that COMELEC’s actions after receiving the Supreme Court’s Restraining Order constituted a disregard for judicial authority and thwarted the Court’s explicit directive. The Court’s February 5 Order was clear: the canvassing of votes, which inherently includes the votes for all candidates, must proceed. By disqualifying Ticzon without a hearing and directing his votes to be treated as stray, COMELEC effectively preempted and nullified the canvass the Court had ordered. This rendered the pending case moot and academic. The proper course was for COMELEC to comply with the Restraining Order, complete the canvass including the votes for both Ticzon and Dizon, and allow the disqualification issue to be resolved either through a proper hearing before COMELEC or in a subsequent quo warranto proceeding. The dissent concluded that the proclamation was invalid and a new canvass should be conducted pursuant to the Court’s order.