GR 53953; (January, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53953 January 5, 1981
SANDE AGUINALDO, NARCISO MENDIOLA, OLYMPIO MEDINA, ROLANDO HERNANDEZ and LEOPOLDO PINON, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SATURNINO V. TIAMSON, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves the mayoral election in Angono, Rizal, held on January 30, 1980. Among the candidates were private respondent Saturnino Tiamson of the Nacionalista Party and Cesar Villones of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. After canvassing, Tiamson was shown to have won by a margin of over 117 votes. Consequently, he was proclaimed Mayor by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on February 29, 1980, and assumed office on March 3, 1980.
On March 10, 1980, the losing candidate, Cesar Villones, filed a quo warranto petition against Tiamson, alleging disqualification based on a change of political party affiliation within six months before the election, a ground under the Constitution. Separately, the petitioners, who are registered voters, had earlier filed a petition for disqualification against Tiamson with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC dismissed this petition, and the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. It was only on May 30, 1980, that the petitioners filed the instant certiorari proceeding with the Supreme Court, seeking to challenge the COMELEC’s orders.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain the petitioners’ certiorari proceeding seeking the disqualification of the proclaimed winning candidate, Saturnino Tiamson, filed after the election and proclamation, and when a quo warranto petition had already been instituted by the losing candidate.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine established in Venezuela v. Commission on Elections and consistently applied thereafter. The Court held that after an election has been held and a candidate has been proclaimed, a petition for disqualification based on a change of political party affiliation (a pre-proclamation controversy) filed with the Supreme Court after the election date should be dismissed. The proper remedy is an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding.
In this case, two decisive circumstances mandated dismissal. First, the certiorari petition was filed only on May 30, 1980, long after the January 30 election and Tiamson’s February 29 proclamation. Second, a proper quo warranto action had already been initiated by the directly interested party, the losing candidate Villones, on March 10, 1980. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the pre-proclamation certiorari petition does not render the disqualification issue moot; it merely channels its resolution to the appropriate post-proclamation remedy already pending. The ruling ensures that pre-proclamation controversies do not unduly delay the assumption of office by the proclaimed winner, while still preserving the right to challenge the winner’s eligibility through the correct legal avenue.