G.R. No. L-60601 December 29, 1983
CESAR NEPOMUCENO, LEON ARCILLAS and RUBEN AVENIDO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and OSCAR LASERNA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were the official Nacionalista Party candidates for local positions in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, in the 1980 elections. Private respondent Oscar Laserna filed a pre-election petition (PDC Case No. 65) to disqualify them for turncoatism. The COMELEC granted the petition, but the Supreme Court issued a restraining order, allowing petitioners to run. They won and were proclaimed. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the COMELEC resolution and remanded the case for a full hearing on the merits. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the case, arguing it was a pre-proceeding that became functus officio after their proclamation, and that the proper remedy was a quo warranto proceeding in the proper court. The COMELEC denied their motion to dismiss and later denied their demurrer to evidence, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss and demurrer to evidence in PDC Case No. 65, a pre-proclamation disqualification case filed before the election but still pending after the candidates’ proclamation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine established in Santiago v. COMELEC and reiterated in Aguinaldo v. COMELEC. The Court held that a pre-proclamation disqualification case based on turncoatism, which was filed before the election and where the COMELEC had already acted upon it (by initially granting it) before the election, remains viable and should be resolved by the COMELEC even after the election and proclamation of the candidate. The Court clarified that its prior resolution remanding the case for a full-dress hearing was precisely to allow the COMELEC to complete the proceedings and decide the case on its merits. This scenario is distinguished from cases where the disqualification petition is filed after the election, which should be dismissed in favor of an election protest or quo warranto. Since PDC Case No. 65 was seasonably invoked and actively pursued before the election, the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to proceed. Therefore, its orders denying the motion to dismiss and the demurrer to evidence, aimed at receiving complete evidence from both parties, were within its discretion and in accordance with due process. The petition was merely dilatory.