G.R. No. L-52830 November 28, 1980
ANTONIO O. SINGCO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and FRANKLIN ONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio O. Singco and private respondent Franklin Ong were candidates for Mayor of Ginatilan, Cebu, in the January 30, 1980 elections. Before the elections, Ong filed a petition with the COMELEC to disqualify Singco on the ground of turncoatism, attaching affidavits and documentary evidence. Singco filed his answer. The COMELEC did not resolve the petition before election day. Singco obtained the highest number of votes and was elected. Despite a COMELEC order to suspend proclamation pending the disqualification suit, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Singco as Mayor. Ong then moved to set aside this proclamation. The COMELEC, on February 26, 1980, issued Resolution No. 9310, disqualifying Singco, ordering all votes cast for him considered stray, and directing the proclamation of the remaining candidate with the highest votes (Ong). Singco’s proclamation was annulled, and Ong was subsequently proclaimed and assumed office.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 9310, which disqualified Singco and annulled his proclamation, without conducting a formal hearing, thereby violating due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the COMELEC resolution. The Court ruled that the COMELEC’s summary proceeding, which decided the disqualification case based solely on pleadings and documentary evidence without a formal hearing, constituted a denial of due process. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A disqualification case, which seeks to nullify the electorate’s will and strip a candidate of a public office, demands a full and fair hearing where the parties can present and confront witnesses and evidence. The COMELEC’s reliance on affidavits and documents, over Singco’s objections that some were coerced or forged, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination and verification, was procedurally infirm. The Court emphasized that administrative bodies like the COMELEC, while not bound by strict judicial rules, must observe fundamental fairness. The time constraints of an election period do not justify the disregard of this essential requirement. Consequently, the resolution, being void for lack of due process, was annulled. The Court further clarified that with the election having been held and a winner having emerged, the proper remedy for the private respondent was to file a regular election protest or a quo warranto proceeding in the proper court to challenge Singco’s eligibility, not a continuation of the pre-proclamation disqualification case before the COMELEC.