Friday, November 15, 2024

SPS. FELIPE PARINGIT AND JOSEFA PARINGIT v. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT [Case Digest]

 

SPS. FELIPE PARINGIT AND JOSEFA PARINGIT v. MARCIANA PARINGIT BAJIT

GR No. 234429, July 10, 2019

LAZARO-JAVIER, J., Second Division

 

Subject:

Civil Law

 

Facts:

                 Respondents Marciana Paringit Bajit, Adolio Paringit, and Rosario Paringit Ordofio sued their brother and his wife herein petitioners Spouses Felipe and Josefa Paringit, for annulment of title and reconveyance of property.

                Respondents essentially alleged that the case involved a 150 square meter lot situated in Manila and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 172313 in petitioners' name. Before the lot was registered in petitioners' name, their parents Julian and Aurelia Paringit used to lease it from Terocel Realty, Inc .. It was their family home. When Terocel offered to sell the lot to their parents, the latter sought financial help from their children. Only petitioners were able to give financial assistance for this purpose. Their father Julian then executed an affidavit declaring that the lot was purchased for the benefit of all his children, namely, Florencio, Marciana, Adolio, Rosario, and Felipe, subject to the condition that the first four aforenamed siblings reimburse Felipe their respective shares in the purchase price.

                From the time their parents bought the property (January 30, 1984) they and petitioners had since resided thereon. In 1988, petitioners moved to another house along the same street. After their father died on December 21, 1994, however, petitioners demanded that they pay back rentals for their use and occupancy of the property from March 1990 to December 1995.

                Trial court ruled in petitioners' favor and dismissed the complaint. Court of Appeals reversed. It held that there was implied trust between petitioners, on one hand, and respondents, on the other. It ordered petitioners to reconvey to respondents (including Florencio, who was not a party to the case) their proportionate shares in the lot upon reimbursement to petitioners of respondents' shares in the purchase price plus legal interest.

                Following the finality of the aforesaid decision, the trial court issued the corresponding Writ of Execution. Even after the lapse of nine (9) years, however, the writ of execution has remained unimplemented mainly because of the multiple motions filed by petitioners, which the trial court had invariably denied.

                One of the last two (2) issuances of the trial court was the Order dated January 14, 2014, viz: As to the defendants' Manifestation, the Court cannot grant defendants' prayer that the deed of reconveyance should be limited only to 110 square meters and not 150 square meters considering that the Supreme Court Decision dated September 29, 2010 did not qualify as to the extent of the measurement of the subject property to be reconveyed to the plaintiffs upon reimbursement of their share in the purchase price of the subject property. Hence, in the absence of any qualification, the Court assumes that the deed of reconveyance covers the plaintiffs' proportionate share on the whole subject property (150 square meters) pursuant to the Supreme Court Decision dated September 29, 2010.

                The trial court reiterated the need to segregate respondents' 90 square meter share from the entire 150 square meter lot. But still insisting on the reconveyance to respondents of just 110 square meters, petitioners moved for reconsideration of the Order dated June 26, 2015. The trial court denied it.  Puting grave abuse of discretion on the trial court, petitioners went to the Court of Appeals to nullify the aforesaid orders for allegedly altering this Court's final and executory Decision dated September 29, 2010 in G.R. No. 181844. Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It held that contrary to petitioners' contention, the trial court did not vary the terms of this Court's Decision dated September 29, 2010, but in fact, effected a sound and logical implementation of the same.  CA denied the M.R.

 

Issue:

                Did the Court of Appeals correctly rule that when the trial court pronounced there was a need to segregate the 90 square meters from the 150 square meters lot, it actually conformed with the terms of this Court's Decision dated September 29, 2010?

 

Held:

                Yes; when the trial court specified the entire 150 square meters to be distributed among the five (5) siblings, Florencio, Felipe, Marciana, Adolio, and Rosario, each to get 30 square meters, the trial court computed the numbers correctly. And when the trial court said that the respective shares of respondents Marciana, Adolio, and Rosario totaled 90 square meters, or 30 square meters each, it again computed the numbers correctly.

                A final word. This Court keenly notes the propensity of petitioners and their counsel for devising various ways and means of delaying for almost nine (9) years now the implementation of its Decision dated September 29, 2010. This is contumacious disobedience. To borrow the words of Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, non-compliance with the lower court's order is no more than non-recognition of this Court's directive. Petitioners must know that this Court is not expected to yield to assaults of disrespect. 

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. RIZAL TEACHERS KILUSANG BAYAN FOR CREDIT GR No. 202097; July 3, 2019 [Case Digest]

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. RIZAL TEACHERS KILUSANG BAYAN FOR CREDIT

GR No. 202097; July 3, 2019

LAZARO-JAVIER, J., Second Division

 

Subjects:

Constitutional Law

Remedial Law

 

Facts:

                For the benefit of public-school teachers, DepEd devised and implemented a payroll deduction scheme for the loans they secured from DepEd's duly accredited private lenders. RTKBCI was among DepEd's accredited private lenders which availed of the latter's payroll deduction scheme. To facilitate DepEd's collections and remittances, RTKBCI was assigned Deduction Codes 209 and 219. DepEd was also paid two percent of the total monthly deductions as administrative fees.

                By Memorandum dated July 4, 2001, DepEd Undersecretary Ernesto S. Pangan directed Dr. Blanquita D. Bautista, Chief Accountant and Officer-in- Charge, Finance and Management Service to hold the remittance of the collections for February to June 2001; and suspend as well the salary deduction scheme for RTKBCI pending resolution of the teachers' numerous complaints against RTKBCI's alleged unauthorized excessive deductions and connivance with some DepEd's personnel in charge of effecting these deductions.

                Responding to Undersecretary Pangan's directive, RTKBCI wrote the former demanding the release of the collections. By letter dated September 12, 2001, Undersecretary Pangan denied the demand. He asserted that the suspension of the salary deduction scheme was necessary to protect the concerned public school teachers.

                RTKBCI filed with RTC-Manila the petition for mandamus to compel DepEd and then Secretary Raul Roco and Undersecretary Pangan to remit to RTKBCI the loan collections and continue with the salary deduction scheme until the loans of the public school teachers should have been fully paid. Trial court granted the writ of mandamus prayed for and ordered DepEd to release to RTKBCI the collections amounting to P111,989,006.98. DepEd was also ordered to pay actual damages of P5,000,000.00 and attorney's fees of P500,000.00.

                CA affirmed the decision of the trial court but deleted the award of actual damages.

 

Issue:

                Whether the Department of Education (DepEd) be compelled by writ of mandamus to collect, by salary deductions, the loan payments of public-school teachers and remit them to the Rizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan for Credit, Inc. (RTKBCI).

 

Held:

                No; the rules governing the writ of mandamus: One. For the writ of mandamus to prosper, the applicant must prove by preponderance of evidence that "there is a clear legal duty imposed upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has a clear legal right to the performance of such act."

                Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a clear legal duty or a ministerial duty imposed by law upon the defendant or respondent to perform the act required that the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust or station. A clear legal right is one that is founded or granted by law. Unless the right to relief is clear, mandamus will not issue. If there is any discretion as to the taking or non-taking of the action sought, there is no clear legal duty. [Pacheco v. Court of Appeals].

                Further, Umali v. Judicial and Bar Council distinguished a ministerial act from a discretionary act, viz: "A purely ministerial act is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. On the other hand, if the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment. Clearly, the use of discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are mutually exclusive."

                Conversely, mandamus will not compel a public official to do anything which is not his or her duty or otherwise give the applicant anything to which he or she is not entitled to under the law. Here, RTKBCI must prove that a law or regulation compels DepEd to continue as RTKBCI's collecting and remitting agent for the loans the latter extended to public school teachers and that RTKBCI is, by such law or regulations, entitled to the collection and remittance of these payments.

                Section 7 of RA 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) sets forth the power, duties and functions of DepEd and the different levels of supervision and regulation of educational activities. Notably, DepEd's activities as collection and remittance agent for accredited private lending institutions are not among its core power, duties, and functions.

                DepEd, nonetheless, has no legal duty to act as a collecting and remitting agent for RTKBCI. The latter has not shown that it remains an accredited private lending institution entitled to avail of the payroll deduction system. Assuming that RTKBCI is still DepEd accredited, DepEd is not precluded from suspending its activities under the payroll deduction scheme vis-a-vis a private lending agency such as RTKBCI. The payroll deduction scheme expressly describes the services it offers as a privilege. As such, DepEd may act as a collecting and remitting agent for a private lending agency, but doing so must always be in consonance with DepEd's power, duties, and functions under Section 7 of RA 9155.

                RTKBCI has no clear legal right to demand that DepEd act as its collecting and remitting agent. To reiterate, this is not one ofDepEd's power, duties, and functions. Rather, it is an accommodation that DepEd does - - - not for the benefit of any private lending agency but as a means to protect and promote the teachers' welfare. Hence, the only feasible characterization of this activity its being a mere privilege. To otherwise characterize this activity is to demean and degrade the stature of DepEd as the sovereign regulator and supervisor of basic education and to reduce it to being a mere collection and remittance agency for private lending institutions.

                Second. Neither estoppel nor practice engenders a clear legal duty for DepEd to act as RTKBCI's collection and remittance agent. As held in Pena v. Delos Santos, "[estoppel is a principle in equity and pursuant to Article 1432, Civil Code, it is adopted insofar as it is not in conflict with the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws." Estoppel, thus, cannot supplant and contravene the provision of law clearly applicable to a case, and conversely, it cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law or one that is against public policy.

                Continued practice in domestic legal matters does not rise to the level of a legal obligation. The first sentence of Article 7 of the Civil Code states, "[laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or nonobservance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary." There can be no clear legal duty and clear legal right where to do so would compel DepEd to violate its power, duties, and functions under Section 7 of RA 9155, specifically toward the protection and promotion of the teachers' welfare. In the latter case, no practice, continued or otherwise, would establish and validate such clear legal duty and clear legal right.

 

Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Villanueva vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-54718, December 04, 1985 [Case Digest]

 

Villanueva vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. L-54718, December 04, 1985

En Banc, TEEHANKEE, J.

Facts:

            Narciso Mendoza, Jr. had filed on January 4, 1980, the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy in the January 30, 1980 local elections, his sworn certificate of candidacy as independent for the office of vice-mayor of the municipality of Dolores, Quezon. But later on the very same day, Mendoza filed an unsworn letter in his own handwriting withdrawing his said certificate of candidacy "for personal reasons."

Later on January 25, 1980, petitioner Crisologo Villanueva, upon learning of his companion Mendoza's withdrawal, filed his own sworn "Certificate of Candidacy in Substitution" of Mendoza's for the said office of vice mayor as a one-man independent ticket.

The results showed petitioner to be the clear winner over respondent with a margin of 452 votes (3,112 votes as against his opponent respondent Lirio's 2,166 votes). But the Municipal Board of Canvassers disregarded all votes cast in favor of petitioner as stray votes on the basis of the Provincial Election Officer's erroneous opinion that since petitioner's name does not appear in the Comelec's certified list of candidates for that municipality, it could be presumed that his candidacy was not duly approved by the Comelec so that his votes could not be "legally counted." The canvassers accordingly proclaimed respondent Vivencio G. Lirio as the only unopposed candidate and as the duly elected vice mayor of the municipality of Dolores.

Comelec contended that petitioner Villanueva could not have substituted for Candidate Mendoza on the strength of Section 28 of the 1978 Election Code which he invokes. For one thing, Mendoza's withdrawal of his certificate is not under oath, as required under Section 27 of the Code; hence it produces no legal effect. For another, said withdrawal was made not after the last day (January 4, 1980) for filing certificates of candidacy, as contemplated under Sec. 28 of the Code, but on that very same day."

 

Issue:

            Whether Comelec erred in holding that Villanueva could not have substituted for Candidate Mendoza because the latter’s withdrawal of his certificate is not under oath as required by law.

 

Held:

            Yes; the Court holds that the Comelec's first ground for denying due course to petitioner's substitute certificate of candidacy, i.e. that Mendoza's withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy was not "under oath," should be rejected. It is not seriously contended by respondent nor by the Comelec that Mendoza's withdrawal was not an actual fact and a reality, so much so that no votes were cast for him at all. In fact, Mendoza's name, even though his candidacy was filed on the last day within the deadline, was not in the Comelec's certified list of candidates. His unsworn withdrawal filed later on the same day had been accepted by the election registrar without protest nor objection. On the other hand, since there was no time to include petitioner's name in the Comelec list of registered candidates, because the election was only four days away, petitioner as substitute candidate circularized formal notices of his candidacy to all chairmen and members of the citizens election committees in compliance with the suggestion of the Comelec Law Manager, Atty. Zoilo Gomez.

            The fact that Mendoza's withdrawal was not sworn is but a technicality which should not be used to frustrate the people's will in favor of petitioner as the substitute candidate. In Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers, 48 Phil. 211, clearly applicable, mutatis mutandis, this Court held that "The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality that the certificate of candidacy had not been properly sworn to. This legal provision is mandatory and non-compliance therewith before the election would be fatal to the status of the candidate before the electorate, but after the people have expressed their will, the result of the election cannot be defeated by the fact that the candidate has not sworn to his certificate or candidacy."

Halili vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019 [Case Digest]

 

Halili vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. 231643, January 15, 2019

En Banc, CARPIO, J.

Facts:

            Petitioner Marino P. Morales was elected and served as Mayor of the Municipality of Mabalacat, Pampanga from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010. He was elected again as mayor during the 2010 elections. On 15 May 2012, or during Morales' second term, Congress passed Republic Act No. (RA) 10164, converting the Municipality of Mabalacat into a component city. Thereafter a plebiscite was held. In the 2013 elections, Morales ran again and was elected as mayor of the new Mabalacat City. On 8 December 2015, Morales filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the 2016 elections for the position of mayor of Mabalacat City, as substitute candidate for Wilfredo Feliciano of Aksyon Demokratiko Party.

            On 4 January 2016, respondent Pyra Lucas, also a candidate for the position of mayor of Mabalacat City, filed a Petition for Cancellation of the COC and/or Disqualification of Morales for the Mayoral Position of Mabalacat City. Lucas alleged that Morales was disqualified to run for mayor, since he was elected and had served three consecutive terms prior to the 2016 elections. Lucas also alleged that the conversion of the Municipality of Mabalacat into Mabalacat City did not interrupt Morales' service for the full term for which he was elected.

            On 10 May 2016, following the canvass of all election returns, the City Board of Canvassers of Mabalacat City proclaimed Morales as elected city mayor, and petitioner Christian C. Halili (Halili) as elected city vice mayor.

            Respondent Crisostomo Garbo (Garbo), another candidate for the position of mayor of Mabalacat City, filed a Motion for Leave To Intervene and To Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention alleging that he was interested in the outcome of the case, since he obtained the second highest number of votes and he should be proclaimed as mayor of Mabalacat City should Morales' COC be cancelled.

            On 28 June 2016, Halili also filed a Verified Motion for Leave to Intervene (as Respondent) and Admit Attached Answer-in-Intervention alleging that, as incumbent vice mayor of Mabalacat City, he should be proclaimed as mayor of Mabalacat City should Morales' COC be cancelled pursuant to the rule on succession under Section 44 of RA 7160, or the Local Government Code.

            COMELEC First Division granted the petition, cancelled Morales' COC, and ordered the proclamation of the qualified mayoralty candidate with the next higher number of votes. COMELEC En Banc declared that Garbo, being the qualified mayoralty candidate with the highest number of votes, should be proclaimed.

 

Issue 1:

            Whether Comelec erred in finding that Morales committed a false material representation in his COC when he declared that he was eligible to run as mayor of Mabalacat City for the 2016 elections despite his violation of the three-term limit rule.

 

Held:

            No; the three-term limit rule is embodied in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

            The intention behind the three-term limit rule is not only to abrogate the "monopolization of political power" and prevent elected officials from breeding "proprietary interest in their position" but also to "enhance the people's freedom of choice." There are two conditions which must concur for the application of the disqualification of a candidate based on violation of the three-term limit rule: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and (2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.

            In the present case, Morales admits that he has been elected and has served as mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for three consecutive terms: (1) 2007-2010; (2) 2010-2013; and (3) 2013-2016. However, Morales insists that his second term as mayor of the Municipality of Mabalacat was interrupted by the conversion of the municipality into a component city. Morales claims that Mabalacat City is an entirely different political unit from the Municipality of Mabalacat, having an increased territory, income and population.

            We have already ruled upon the same issue in the case of Latasa v. COMELEC (Latasa), where we held that the conversion of a municipality into a city does not constitute an interruption of the incumbent official's continuity of service. We held that to be considered as interruption of service, the "law contemplates a rest period during which the local elective official steps down from office and ceases to exercise power or authority over the inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of a particular local government unit."

            In Aratea v. Commission on Elections (Aratea), we found that Lonzanida misrepresented his eligibility because he knew fully well that he had been elected, and had served, as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales for more than three consecutive terms, yet, he still certified that he was eligible to run for mayor for the next succeeding term. We held that such misrepresentation constitutes false material representation as to his qualification or eligibility for the office.

            Contrary to Morales' argument that since he had been proclaimed and had assumed office as mayor in 2016, disputes as to his COC became moot and the proper remedy is to file a quo warranto proceeding questioning his eligibility, we held in Velasco v. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course to and cancel a COC continues, to wit:

If the disqualification or COC cancellation/denial case is not resolved before election day, the proceedings shall continue even after the election and the proclamation of the winner. In the meanwhile, the candidate may be voted for and be proclaimed if he or she wins, but the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course and cancel his or her COC continues. This rule applies even if the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the highest number of votes, and even if the candidate is proclaimed and has taken his oath of office. The only exception to this rule is in the case of congressional or senatorial candidates with unresolved disqualification or COC denial/cancellation cases after the elections. Pursuant to Section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution, the COMELEC ipso jure loses jurisdiction over these unfinished cases in favor of the respective Senate or the House of Representatives electoral tribunals after the candidates take their oath of office. Moreover, we held in Fermin v. Commission on Elections that the Court has already likened a proceeding under Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253 of the OEC since they both deal with the eligibility or qualification of a candidate, with the distinction mainly in the fact that a "Section 78" petition is filed before proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation of the wining candidate.

 

Issue 2:

            Whether Comelec erred in declaring Crisostomo Garbo the qualified mayoral candidate with the highest number of votes should be proclaimed.

 

Held:

            No; As we held in Aratea, a violation of the three-term limit rule is an ineligibility affecting the qualification of a candidate to elective office and the misrepresentation of such is a ground to grant the petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC. A person whose COC had been denied due course and/or cancelled under Section 78 is deemed to have not been a candidate at all, because his COC is considered void ab initio and thus, cannot give rise to a valid candidacy and necessarily to valid votes.

In Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, we explained that: Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the certificate of candidacy of the first-placer was valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. If the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, then legally the person who filed such void certificate of candidacy was never a candidate in the elections at any time. All votes for such non-candidate are stray votes and should not be counted. Thus, such non-candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled on the day, or before the day, of the election, prevailing jurisprudence holds that all votes for that candidate are stray votes. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled one day or more after the elections, all votes for such candidate should also be stray votes because the certificate of candidacy is void from the very beginning. This is the more equitable and logical approach on the effect of the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy that is void ab initio. Otherwise, a certificate of candidacy void ab initio can operate to defeat one or more valid certificates of candidacy for the same position. The rule on succession under Section 44 of RA 7160, as espoused by Halili, would not apply if the permanent vacancy was caused by one whose COC was void ab initio. In case of vacancies caused by those with void ab initio COCs, the person legally entitled to the vacant position would be the candidate who garnered the next highest number of votes among those eligible. In this case, it is Garbo who is legally entitled to the position of mayor, having garnered the highest number of votes among the eligible candidates. Thus, the COMELEC correctly proclaimed Garbo as mayor of Mabalacat City.

 

Gana-Carait vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 257453. August 09, 2022 [Case Digest]

 

Gana-Carait vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. 257453. August 09, 2022

En Banc, ROSARIO, J.

Facts:

            On 17 October 2018, petitioner filed her CoC as Member of Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Lone District of Biñan, Laguna, for the 13 May 2019 National and Local Elections (NLE).

            On 22 October 2018, respondent Lim filed a petition for disqualification against petitioner before the COMELEC. Respondent Lim claimed that petitioner acquired United States (US) citizenship and sought election to public office without making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. Respondent Lim likewise alleged that petitioner's application for and use of a US passport negated her claim that she was a Filipino citizen at the time she filed her CoC.

            Petitioner filed her answers to the foregoing petitions, claiming that: (1) she did not commit any material representation in her CoC since there was no deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate ineligible; (2) she is a dual citizen and she is not precluded from seeking an elective position; (3) dual allegiance is unlike dual citizenship, and it is the former that is proscribed by law; (4) since there is no voluntary or positive act on her part in acquiring her US citizenship, she being born in the US, the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (R.A. 9225), is not applicable to her; (5) possession of an American passport of a dual citizen is not a basis for disqualification; and (6) the COMELEC cannot, as yet, decide on her qualifications since it is an issue that is undecided or undetermined by the proper authority.

            COMELEC First Division denied the petition for disqualification, but granted the petition to deny due course to or cancel petitioner's certificate of candidacy. COMELEC First Division found that, from the time her US passport was issued in 2010 up to 2018, petitioner used her US passport to travel to and from the US and the Philippines, and vice versa.

            COMELEC En Banc affirmed the decision of the COMELEC First Division. According to the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of R.A. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run for elective office and, thus, she committed material misrepresentations in her CoC when she stated therein that she was eligible to run for election.

 

Issue:

            Whether the petitioner committed material misrepresentations in her CoC.

 

Held:

            No; R.A. 9225 is applicable only to dual citizens by naturalization and not to dual citizens by birth. As was made clear in De Guzman v. COMELEC, R.A. 9225 covers two categories of individuals, thus: R.A. No. 9225 was enacted to allow re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship for: 1) natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country: and 2) natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of the law, become citizens of a foreign country. The law provides that they are deemed to have re-acquired or retained their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.

                R.A. 9225 particularly applies to natural-born Filipinos who lost their Filipino citizenship through the process of naturalization. Essentially, both classes of individuals mentioned in R.A. 9225 refer to those who have undergone the process of naturalization.

                Thus, the coverage of R.A. 9225 includes only those natural-born Filipinos who acquired foreign citizenship through the process of naturalization. Similarly, the provisions of R.A. 9225 on the required oath of allegiance under Section 3, and the personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship under its Section 5(2) apply only to dual citizens by naturalization and not to dual citizens by birth. This is confirmed by the case of Maquiling v. COMELEC (Maquiling), which states: Arnado's category of dual citizenship is that by which foreign citizenship is acquired through a positive act of applying for naturalization. This is distinct from those considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not required by law to take the oath of renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy already carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship. Dual citizens by naturalization, on the other hand, are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public office.

                Records show that petitioner was a dual citizen at the time she filed her CoC for the May 2019 NLE, being both a US citizen and a natural born Filipino. The pivotal issue however is whether petitioner acquired her US citizenship—and therefore her status as a dual citizen—by birth or through naturalization. If by birth, petitioner need not renounce her US citizenship or pledge allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to qualify as a candidate for public office as required by Sections 3 and 5(2) of R.A. 9225. Otherwise, if her dual citizenship proceeded from naturalization, petitioner must perform the twin requirement or renunciation and the taking of an oath under R.A. 9225.

                Petitioner is a dual citizen by birth, and not by naturalization. First. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws, and these must be proven as fact under the rules on evidence. Having cited Act 322 of the United States INA in its argument that petitioner is not a dual citizen at birth but a dual citizen by naturalization, respondents Lim and Nuñez should have proven such foreign law pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court. The COMELEC First Division should not have taken judicial notice of this law, much less made an attempt to analyze and apply the same.

                Second. As furthermore pointed out by Justice Caguioa, the cited portions of the INA, which refers to automatic citizenship of a child upon the application of his or her American citizen parent, even supports the conclusion that, if, indeed, some positive acts were performed in the acquisition of petitioner's US citizenship, the same could not have been performed by her but rather, by her American parent. Notably, the records are bereft of any evidence which would indicate to the slightest degree that petitioner petitioned to acquire her US citizenship or that she went through the pertinent naturalization process. Again, respondents Lim and Nuñez had the burden of proving such allegations before the COMELEC.

                As explained by Justices Caguioa and Lazaro-Javier, the very language of the CRBA shows that petitioner's US citizenship was acquired at birth, as it literally states: "acquired United States Citizenship at birth," and that documentary evidence was presented merely to establish such fact. Being a citizen of the US at birth, it would be absurd to construe petitioner's submission of documents to the Consular Service of the US to be akin to one's availment of the naturalization process for the purpose of becoming an American citizen, when she, herself has already been one since her birth.

Buenafe vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 260374. June 28, 2022 [Case Digest]

 

Buenafe vs. Comelec,

G.R. No. 260374. June 28, 2022

En Banc, ZALAMEDA, J.

Facts:

            On 2 November 2021, petitioners Buenafe, et al. filed before the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the COC of respondent Marcos, Jr. under Section 78, in relation to Section 74, Article IX of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 881, or the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).

            Petitioners Buenafe, et al. and Ilagan, et al. referred to the same set of criminal cases for the violation of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended (1977 NIRC), involving respondent Marcos, Jr.

            On 27 June 1990, the Special Tax Audit Team (audit team) created by then Commissioner of Internal Revenue Jose U. Ong (Commissioner Ong) commenced an investigation of the internal revenue tax and estate tax liabilities of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, as well as his alleged "associates and cronies." The audit sought to determine whether the taxpayer: (1) earned income; (2) filed the required income tax; and (3) made the corresponding tax payment. The audit team submitted its findings to Commissioner Ong, which prompted him to file a letter complaint dated 25 July 1991 with the Secretary of Justice.

            In Criminal Cases Nos. Q-91-24391, Q-92-29212, Q-92-29213, and Q-92-29217, respondent Marcos, Jr. was charged with violation of the 1977 NIRC for failure to file his income tax returns for the years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. In Criminal Cases Nos. Q-92-29216, Q-92-29215, Q-92-29214, and Q-91-24390, respondent Marcos, Jr. was charged with violation of the 1977 NIRC for failure to pay income taxes due, exclusive of surcharges and interests, in the amounts of P107.80 for 1982, P3,911.00 for 1983, P1,828.48 for 1984, and P2,656.95 for 1985.

            RTC held that Ferdinand Marcos Jr guilty beyond reasonable doubt. CA agreed with respondent Marcos, Jr. that there was insufficient notice from the BIR. It further declared that respondent Marcos, Jr. should not have been held to answer for the criminal charges filed against him for non-payment of deficiency income tax liabilities.

            CA acquitted the accused-appellant of the charges for violation of Section 50 of the NIRC for non-payment of deficiency taxes for the taxable years 1982 to 1985 in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-02-29216, Q-92-29215, Q-92-29214, and Q-91-24390; and FINDING him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 45 of the NIRC for failure to file income tax returns for the taxable years 1982 to 1985 in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-91-24391, Q-92-29212, Q-92-29213, and Q-92-29217.

            CA ordered the appellant to pay a fine of P2,000.00 for each charge in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-92-29213, Q-92-29212 and Q-29217 for failure to file income tax returns for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984; and the fine of P30,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-91-24391 for failure to file income tax return for 1985, with surcharges.

            On 02 December 2021, the RTC released a certification stating that there is no record on file of respondent Marcos, Jr.'s compliance of payment or satisfaction of its Decision dated 27 July 1995 or that of the CA's Decision dated 31 October 1997. Neither was there any entry in the criminal docket of the RTC Decision dated 27 July 1995 as affirmed and modified by the CA.

            In SPA No. 21-156 (DC), petitioners Buenafe, et al. argued before the COMELEC that respondent Marcos, Jr. committed false material representation when he stated in his COC that he is eligible to run for President. They maintained that respondent Marcos, Jr.'s prior conviction carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding any public office, to vote, and to participate in any election.

            The COMELEC Second Division ruled that respondent Marcos, Jr.'s material representations are not false, i.e., that he is eligible for the position of President and that he is not perpetually disqualified from public office. It underscored that the CA Decision did not mete out the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office. It also found, as a matter of judicial notice, that respondent Marcos, Jr. ceased to be a public officer when he and his family were forced to leave the Philippines on 25 February 1986. The penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office under Section 286 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1994, which amended Section 286(c) of the 1977 NIRC, thus cannot apply to respondent Marcos, Jr. since he was already a private individual when he failed to file his 1985 income tax return. The COMELEC Second Division also concluded that respondent Marcos, Jr. had no intention to deceive the electorate about his qualifications for public office.

            The COMELEC Second Division reiterated this Court's declaration in Republic v. Ferdinand Marcos II and Imelda R. Marcos that failure to file an income tax return is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Moreover, failure to file income tax returns is not tax evasion.

 

Issue 1:

            Whether the Supreme Court still has jurisdiction to rule upon the eligibility of [respondent Marcos, Jr.

 

Held:

            Yes; By the same token, the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the Supreme Court, albeit it has functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. It is obvious that the PET was constituted in implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it faithfully complies — not unlawfully defies — the constitutional directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, respectively, was designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunal's functions as a special electoral court.

            When the Court acts as the PET, it is not a separate and distinct body from the Court itself. The constitutional provision refers to the same "Supreme Court sitting en banc." However, it should be recognized that the proceedings before the PET require a distinct set of rules of procedure owing to the very specific nature of its functions. Thus, the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court En Banc as the PET is likened to the characterization of specialized courts in relation to the then Courts of First Instance. They are the same courts having the same jurisdiction, only that specialized courts are intended for practicality. Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution therefore should not be considered as a limitation on the jurisdiction of the Court over the pending petitions.

           

 

 

Issue 2:

            Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to cancel the subject COC of Respondent Marcos, Jr. and ruling that respondent Marcos, Jr.'s material representations, i.e., that he is eligible for the position of President and that he has not been convicted of a crime punished with the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, are not false.

 

Held:

            No; respondent Marcos, Jr. possesses all of the qualifications and does not possess any of the grounds for disqualification.

            We reiterate that the qualifications for President and Vice-President are prescribed in Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. These qualifications are also found in Section 63 of the OEC.

            There is no question that respondent Marcos, Jr. has all the qualifications of a candidate for President as provided under the Constitution and the OEC. Notably, neither the Buenafe Petition nor the Ilagan Petition alleges that respondent Marcos, Jr. lacks any of these qualifications: natural-­born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

            Petitioners Ilagan, et al. instead argue that respondent Marcos, Jr. has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and is thus disqualified from being a candidate and holding any government office under Section 12 of the OEC.

            Respondent Marcos, Jr.'s failure to file income tax returns is not a crime involving moral turpitude.

            Not every criminal act involves moral turpitude, nor do they necessarily have to be heinous. Moral turpitude has been often understood to mean acts that are "contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general." It does not include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited.

            Indeed, in Zari v. Flores, We said that tax evasion is a crime involving moral turpitude. On whether an act or omission constitutes tax evasion, We certainly agree that it depends on the totality of circumstances. As such, it must be clarified that failure to file income tax return does not always amount to tax evasion. Tax evasion connotes fraud through the use of pretenses and forbidden devices to lessen or defeat taxes. The fraud contemplated by law is actual and not constructive. It must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some legal right. Negligence, whether slight or gross, is not equivalent to the fraud with intent to evade the tax contemplated by law. It must amount to intentional wrong-doing with the sole object of avoiding the tax. Furthermore, tax evasion connotes the integration of three factors: (a) the end to be achieved, i.e., the payment of less than that known by the taxpayer to be legally due, or the non-payment of tax when it is shown that a tax is due; (b) an accompanying state of mind, which is described as being "evil," in "bad faith," "willful," or "deliberate and not accidental"; and (c) a course of action or failure of action that is unlawful.

            On the other hand, failure to file income tax return may be committed by neglect, without any fraudulent intent and/or willfulness. In fact, under Section 248 of the 1997 NIRC, the law treats "failure to file any return" differently from "willful neglect to file the return." The former is meted with a surcharge of 25%, while the latter, 50%. The 50% rate is referred to as the fraud penalty. Previously, under Section 72 of the 1939 NIRC, a taxpayer may be excused from the 25% surcharge if the taxpayer subsequently files the return despite absence of BIR notice and the earlier failure is due to a reasonable cause.

            As Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier eloquently declared, taken in its proper context, the failure to file a compensation income tax return is far from being "everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general." [Teves vs. Comelec].

            The 'failure to file an income tax return' is not a crime involving moral turpitude as the mere omission is already a violation regardless of the fraudulent intent or willfulness of the individual. This conclusion is supported by the provisions of the NIRC as well as previous Court decisions which show that with regard to the filing of an income tax return, the NIRC considers three distinct violations: (1) a false return, (2) a fraudulent return with intent to evade tax, and (3) failure to file a return.

            This clarification starts with a distinction between taxpayers who are not required to file income tax returns from taxpayers who file tax returns under the substituted filing system. Under Section 51(A)(2) of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, a minimum wage earner is exempt from income tax and is not required to file an income tax return. On the other hand, an individual earning purely compensation income from a single employer whose income tax has been correctly withheld by said employer is not required to file an annual income tax return. Over the years, the BIR recognized the need to simplify the filing of individual income tax returns. It introduced the substituted filing system in Revenue Regulations (R.R.) No. 3-2002, which was further amended by R.R. No. 19-2002. Substituted filing took effect in taxable year 2001 and was made mandatory starting the taxable year 2002.

            The substituted filing system made it easier for pure compensation earners to file their income tax returns because the relevant information is more accessible to their employers. In substituted filing, the employer's annual return for the employee is considered as the employee's income tax return because they contain identical information. Employers, or other persons who are required to deduct and withhold the tax on compensation, furnish their employees with a Certificate of Income Tax Withheld on Compensation, or BIR Form No. 2316. After the issuance of a joint certification by the employer and the employee, the employee who is qualified for substituted filing is no longer required to file an Annual Income Tax Return, or BIR Form No. 1700.

            Under "substituted filing", an individual taxpayer although required under the law to file his income tax return, will no longer have to personally file his own income tax return but instead the employer's annual information return filed will be considered as the "substitute" income tax return of the employee inasmuch as the information in the employer's return is exactly the same information in the employee's return.

            Conviction for non-filing of income tax returns is not a ground for disqualification.  We agree with the COMELEC, that the introduction of the penalty of both imprisonment and fine in Section 254 only became effective in 1998 when the 1997 NIRC was passed. Consequently, this cannot be retroactively applied to the prejudice of respondent Marcos, Jr., who was convicted for failure to file the required tax returns for the years 1982 to 1985. Well-settled is the rule that penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, unless favorable to the accused.

            Respondent Marcos, Jr.'s representations that are subject of the Petitions are material.  In Villafuerte v. COMELEC, We held that, for a representation to be material, it must "refer to an eligibility or qualification for the elective office the candidate seeks to hold." Thus, facts pertaining to a candidate's residency, age, citizenship, or any other legal qualification are considered material under Section 78 of the OEC.

            Further, in Salcedo II v. COMELEC, the Court explained the rationale behind the requirement of materiality, and concluded that the law should not be interpreted to cover innocuous mistakes: Therefore, it may be concluded that the material misrepresentation contemplated by section 78 of the Code refer to qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made a false representation in his [or her] certificate of candidacy are grave — to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him [or her] for violation of the election laws. It could not have been the intention of the law to deprive a person of such a basic and substantive political right to be voted for a public office upon just any innocuous mistake.

            In this case, petitioners Buenafe, et al. assert that respondent Marcos, Jr. made a false material representation when, in his COC, he certified under oath the statement, "I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected to." Respondent Marcos, Jr. also allegedly misrepresented his eligibility when he checked the box "No" in response to the question, "[have you ever been found liable for an offense which carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office, which has become final and executory?" Petitioners Buenafe, et al. claim that respondent Marcos, Jr.'s conviction for violation of the NIRC carried with it the penalty of perpetual disqualification, thereby rendering the two statements false.

            The assailed representations pass the test of materiality because they pertain to respondent. Marcos, Jr.'s eligibility to hold elective office. In Dimapilis v. COMELEC (Dimapilis), We ruled that perpetual disqualification is a material fact because it directly affects a person's capacity to be elected and to hold public office, thus:

A CoC is a formal requirement for eligibility to public office. Section 74 of the OEC provides that the CoC of the person filing it shall state, among others, that he is eligible for the office he seeks to run, and that the facts stated therein are true to the best of his knowledge. To be "eligible" relates to the capacity of holding, as well as that of being elected to an office. Conversely, "ineligibility" has been defined as a "disqualification or legal incapacity to be elected to an office or appointed to a particular position." In this relation, a person intending to run for public office must not only possess the required qualifications for the position for which he or she intends to run, but must also possess none of the grounds for disqualification under the law.

            In this case, petitioner had been found guilty of Grave Misconduct by a final judgment, and punished with dismissal from service with all its accessory penalties, including perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Verily, perpetual disqualification to hold public office is a material fact involving eligibility which rendered petitioner's CoC void from the start since he was not eligible to run for any public office at the time he filed the same. When respondent Marcos, Jr. declared that he has not been convicted of an offense that carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold office, he made a material representation regarding his eligibility to run for and hold elective office. This representation, if proved false, would fall within the ambit of Section 78 of the OEC.

            Similarly, respondent Marcos, Jr. made a material representation when he signed and subscribed to his COC, which states that, "I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected to." In Aratea v. COMELEC, the Court emphasized that disqualification to run for office is an ineligibility. Consequently, a statement in the COC that one is eligible, when such is not the case, is a false material representation constituting ground for the application of Section 78 of the OEC: Perpetual special disqualification is a ground for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code because this accessory penalty is an ineligibility, which means that the convict is not eligible to run for public office, contrary to the statement that Section 74 requires him to state under oath in his certificate of candidacy. As this Court held in Fermin v. Commission on Elections, the false material representation may refer to "qualifications or eligibility." One who suffers from perpetual special disqualification is ineligible to run for public office. If a person suffering from perpetual special disqualification files a certificate of candidacy stating under oath that "he is eligible to run for (public) office," as expressly required under Section 74, then he clearly makes a false material representation that is a ground for a petition under Section 78.

            Lest it be misunderstood, the denial of due course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the lack of qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made a material representation that is false, which may relate to the qualifications required of the public office he/she is running for. It is noted that the candidate states in his/her CoC that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks. Section 78 of the OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states a material representation in the CoC that is false, the COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to deny due course to or cancel such certificate. Indeed, the Court has already likened a proceeding under Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253 of the OEC since they both deal with the eligibility or qualification of candidate, with the distinction mainly in the fact that a "Section 78" petition is filed before proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation of the winning candidate.

Ultimately, however, a petition to deny due course to or to cancel COC and a petition for disqualification are "different remedies, based on different grounds, and resulting in different eventualities."

            First, the two remedies are anchored on distinct grounds: whereas an action under Section 78 of the OEC is concerned with the false representation by a candidate as to material information in the COC, a petition for disqualification relates to the declaration of a candidate as ineligible or lacking in quality or accomplishment fit for the elective position said candidate is seeking. To prosper, the former requires proof of deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact relating to the candidate's requisite residency, age, citizenship, or any other legal qualification necessary to run for elective office; the latter, possession of a disqualification as declared by a final decision of a competent court, or as found by the Commission.

            Second, they have different prescriptive periods: a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC may be filed within five days from the last day of filing of COCs, but not later than 25 days from the filing of the COC sought to be canceled; a petition for disqualification may be filed any day after the last day of the filing of COC, but not later than the date of the proclamation.

            Third, both have markedly distinct effects: a disqualified person is merely prohibited to continue as a candidate, while the person whose certificate is canceled or denied due course is not treated as a candidate at all. Moreover, a disqualified candidate may still be substituted if they had a valid COC in the first place. However, one whose COC was denied due course or canceled cannot be substituted because the law considers him or her to not have been a candidate at all.

            While the grounds for a petition for disqualification are limited to Sections 12 and 68 of the OEC, and, for local elective officials, Section 40 of the LGC, the same grounds may be invoked in a petition to deny due course to or cancel COC if these involve the representations required under Section 78.