G.R. No. L-329; April 16, 1946
VICENTE SOTTO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Sotto filed a petition for review of a decision by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that declared respondent Emilio M. Javier as the true and legitimate President of the Popular Front (Sumulong) Party. Sotto claimed he was the Party’s President. The COMELEC’s decision was based on its findings that: (1) During the illness and after the death of the late party president Juan Sumulong, Dr. Emilio M. Javier acted and was recognized by party members as the interim president, at least until February 1, 1946. (2) No election was ever held to fill the vacancy caused by Sumulong’s death. (3) Sotto’s claim derived from a resolution adopted on February 1, 1946, by four members of the Party’s Directorate, accepting a resignation letter Javier had submitted on April 30, 1942. The COMELEC found this meeting and resolution null and void because the meeting was convened by the secretary without the knowledge or authorization of the party president, the resolution was adopted by a minority of four out of eleven Directorate members, and the resignation letter was not real and effective as it was presented under pressure during the Japanese regime.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the findings of fact of the Commission on Elections under Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 , and relatedly, whether the COMELEC’s decision declaring Emilio M. Javier as the legitimate party president is correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through Justice Feria, dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC’s decision.
1. On the Scope of Review: The Court held that under Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 , which states that COMELEC decisions “may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari in accordance with the Rules of Court,” the Supreme Court cannot review the COMELEC’s findings of fact. A writ of certiorari under the Rules of Court only allows review for lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not errors in factual findings. The Court rejected the view that Article X, Section 2 of the Constitution (“decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court”) allows a broader review, as the specific statutory mode of review (certiorari) must be applied, and its constitutionality was not assailed.
2. On the Merits (Assuming Review is Allowed): The Court found that even if it could review the facts, the COMELEC’s findings were supported by the evidence and the law. The evidence showed Javier was designated as acting president by Juan Sumulong and was recognized as such by the party members and Directorate. The February 1, 1946, meeting and resolution that Sotto relied upon were invalidly convened and passed by a minority. Furthermore, Javier’s 1942 resignation was not voluntary, having been made under duress during the Japanese occupation.
Therefore, the petition was denied, and the COMELEC’s decision declaring Emilio M. Javier as the legitimate President of the Popular Front (Sumulong) Party was affirmed.
DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Perfecto, concurred in by Justices Hilado and Bengzon):
The dissenting opinion argued that the Supreme Court has the power to review COMELEC decisions on both law and fact, as the constitutional mandate for review should not be restricted by a statute providing only for certiorari. On the merits, the dissent contended that a national convention of the party held on January 27, 1946, validly elected Vicente Sotto as president. It argued that the convention’s resolution was binding on all party members under the party’s rules. The dissent concluded that the group refusing to obey this convention resolution (Javier’s group) was the secessionist faction, and the case should be remanded to the COMELEC to determine the will of the party’s directorate.