EN BANC

G.R. No. 192984 February 28, 2012

ROLANDO D. LAYUG, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIANO VELARDE (alias "BROTHER
MIKE") and BUHAY PARTY-LIST, Respondents.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, petitioner Rolando D.
Layug seeks to (1) enjoin the implementation of the Resolution 1 of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division, dated June 15, 2010,
which denied his petition to disqualify respondent Buhay Hayaan Yumabong
Party-List (hereinafter Buhay Party-List) from participating in the 2010 Party-List
Elections, and Mariano Velarde (Brother Mike) from being its nominee; (2) nullify
Buhay Party-List's proclamation under COMELEC En Banc NBC Resolution2
No.10-034 dated July 30, 2010; and (3) compel the COMELEC En Banc to rule
on his Motion for Reconsideration3 dated 28 July 2010.
The Facts
On March 31, 2010, petitioner Rolando D. Layug (Layug), in his capacity as a
taxpayer and concerned citizen, filed pro se a Petition to Disqualify4 (SPA No. 10-
016 [DCN]) Buhay Party-List from participating in the May 10, 2010 elections,
and Brother Mike from being its nominee. He argued that Buhay Party-List is a
mere "extension of the El Shaddai," which is a religious sect. As such, it is
disqualified from being a party-list under Section 5, Paragraph 2, Article VI of the
1987 Constitution5 , as well as Section 6, Paragraph 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
79416 , otherwise known as the "Party-List System Act." Neither does Brother
Mike, who is allegedly a billionaire real estate businessman and the spiritual
leader of El Shaddai, qualify as "one who belongs to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector xxx", as required of party-list nominees under Section 6
(7) of COMELEC Resolution No. 88077 , the "Rules on Disqualification Cases
Against Nominees of Party-List Groups/Organizations Participating in the May
10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections."
In their Answer8 thereto, Buhay Party-List and Brother Mike claimed that Buhay
Party-List is not a religious sect but a political party possessing all the
qualifications of a party-list. It is composed of groups for the elderly, the women,
the youth, the handicapped, as well as the professionals, and Brother Mike
belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented elderly group. They likewise
argued that nominees from a political party such as Buhay Party-List need not
even come from the marginalized and underrepresented sector.
Record shows that Layug received a copy of the aforesaid Answer only at the
hearing conducted on April 20, 2010 after his lawyer, Atty. Rustico B. Gagate,
manifested that his client has not received the same. Counsel for private
respondents explained that their liaison officer found Layug's given address –
#70 Dr. Pilapil St., Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City – to be inexistent. To this,
Atty. Gagate was said to have retorted as follows: "The good counsel for the
respondent could send any Answer or processes or pleadings to may (sic)
address at Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya Your Honor, they could come over all the
way to Nueva Vizcaya, we will entertain him."9
On June 15, 2010, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution 10 denying
the petition for lack of substantial evidence. A copy thereof was sent to Layug via
registered mail at #70 Dr. Pilapil Street, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City.
However, the mail was returned unserved with the following notation of the
postmaster: "1st 6/23/10 unknown; 2nd 6/25/10 unknown; and 3rd attempt
6/28/10 RTS INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS." Subsequently, in its Order 11 dated July
26, 2010, the COMELEC Second Division found Layug to be a "phantom
petitioner" by "seeing to it that pleadings, orders and judicial notices addressed to
him are not received by him because the address he gave and maintains is
fictitious". Accordingly, Layug was deemed to have received on June 23, 2010 a
copy of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 and, there being no motion for
reconsideration filed within the reglementary period, said Resolution was
declared final and executory. It was entered 12 in the Book of Entries of Judgment
on July 28, 2010.
As a consequence of such entry, the COMELEC En Banc, sitting as the National
Board of Canvassers for Party-List, promulgated on July 30, 2010 NBC
Resolution No. 10-03413 proclaiming Buhay Party-List as a winner entitled to two
(2) seats in the House of Representatives. Being the fifth nominee, however,
Brother Mike was not proclaimed as the representative of Buhay Party-List.
Meanwhile, on July 28, 2010, Layug moved for reconsideration of the Resolution
dated June 15, 2010 before the COMELEC En Banc claiming denial of due
process for failure of the COMELEC to serve him, his representatives or
counsels a copy of said Resolution. He alleged that it was only on July 26, 2010,
after learning about it in the newspapers, that he personally secured a copy of
the Resolution from the COMELEC.14 His motion for reconsideration, however,
was denied by the COMELEC Second Division in its Order 15 dated August 4,
2010 for being filed out of time.
>The Issues
Aggrieved, Layug filed this petition imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the COMELEC for the following acts and omissions:
I. THE COMELEC SECOND DIVISION DID NOT ISSUE A NOTICE OF
PROMULGATION TO THE PETITIONER’S COUNSEL AS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13 OF THE RULES OF COURT, THEREBY COMMITTING A CLEAR
VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; and
II. BY ISSUING THE 30 JULY 2010 RESOLUTION, THE COMELEC EN BANC
UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT WHICH THE
LAW SPECIFICALLY ENJOINS AS A DUTY RESULTING FROM ITS OFFICE,
WHICH IS TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS TIMELY FILED.16
In their respective Comments17 to the petition, respondents assail the jurisdiction
of the Court arguing that, with the proclamation of Buhay Party-List on July 30,
2010 and the assumption into office of its representatives, Mariano Michael DM.
Velarde, Jr. and William Irwin C. Tieng, it is now the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal that has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over questions
relating to their qualifications.
With regard to the issue on denial of due process, respondents maintain that, by
providing an incorrect address to which a copy of the Resolution dated June 15,
2010 was duly sent and by refusing to rectify the error in the first instance when it
was brought to his attention, Layug cannot now be heard to complain.
We rule for the respondents.
The Ruling of the Court
I. The Court not the HRET has jurisdiction over the present petition.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its Members. Section 5 (1) of
the same Article identifies who the "members" of the House are:
Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than
two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who,
as provided by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (Underscoring added).
Clearly, the members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: (1)
members who shall be elected from legislative districts; and (2) those who shall
be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations. 18 In this case, Buhay Party-List was entitled to
two seats in the House that went to its first two nominees, Mariano Michael DM.
Velarde, Jr. and William Irwin C. Tieng. On the other hand, Brother Mike, being
the fifth nominee, did not get a seat and thus had not become a member of the
House of Representatives. Indubitably, the HRET has no jurisdiction over the
issue of Brother Mike's qualifications.
Neither does the HRET have jurisdiction over the qualifications of Buhay Party-
List, as it is vested by law, specifically, the Party-List System Act, upon the
COMELEC. Section 6 of said Act states that "the COMELEC may motu proprio or
upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due
notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition xxx." Accordingly, in the case of Abayon vs. HRET,19 We
ruled that the HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it dismissed the
petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay party-list
insofar as they sought the disqualifications of said party-lists.
Thus, it is the Court, under its power to review decisions, orders, or resolutions of
the COMELEC provided under Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution 20
and Section 1, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure 21 that has
jurisdiction to hear the instant petition.
II. Layug was not denied due process.
A party may sue or defend an action pro se.22 Under Section 3, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court, "(e)very pleading must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post
office box."
A judicious perusal of the records shows that Layug filed pro se both the Petition
to Disqualify23 and his Position Paper24 before the COMELEC Second Division. In
the Petition to Disqualify, he stated his address as #70 Dr. Pilapil Street,
Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City. While Atty. Rustico B. Gagate appeared as
counsel for Layug during the hearing conducted on April 20, 2010, he
nonetheless failed to provide either his or his client's complete and correct
address despite the manifestation that counsel for private respondents could not
personally serve the Answer on Layug due to the inexistence of the given
address. Neither did the Position Paper that was subsequently filed pro se on
April 23, 2010 indicate any forwarding address.
It should be stressed that a copy of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 was
mailed to Layug at his stated address at #70 Dr. Pilapil Street, Barangay San
Miguel, Pasig City, which however was returned to sender (COMELEC) after
three attempts due to insufficiency of said address, as evidenced by certified true
copies of the registry return receipt25 , as well as the envelope26 containing the
Resolution; the Letter27 of Pasig City Central Post Office Postmaster VI Erlina M.
Pecante; the Certification28 dated November 2, 2010 of the Postmaster of Pasig
City Post Office; and the Affidavit of Service 29 of COMELEC Bailiff Arturo F. Forel
dated August 13, 2010. Consequently, the COMELEC deemed Layug to have
received a copy of the Resolution on June 23, 2010, the date the postmaster
made his first attempt to serve it. There being no motion for reconsideration filed,
the COMELEC issued an Order30 on July 26, 2010 declaring the Resolution final
and executory, which thereafter became the basis for the issuance of the
assailed COMELEC En Banc’s NBC Resolution31 No. 10-034 dated July 30,
2010.
From the fact alone that the address which Layug furnished the COMELEC was
incorrect, his pretensions regarding the validity of the proceedings and
promulgation of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 for being in violation of his
constitutional right to due process are doomed to fail. 32 His refusal to rectify the
error despite knowledge thereof impels Us to conclude that he deliberately stated
an inexistent address with the end in view of delaying the proceedings upon the
plea of lack of due process. As the COMELEC aptly pointed out, Layug
contemptuously made a mockery of election laws and procedure by appearing
before the Commission by himself or by different counsels when he wants to, and
giving a fictitious address to ensure that he does not receive mails addressed to
him.33 He cannot thus be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. To rule
otherwise, considering the circumstances in the instant case, would place the
date of receipt of pleadings, judgments and processes within Layug's power to
determine at his pleasure. This, We cannot countenance.
It bears stressing that the finality of a decision or resolution is a jurisdictional
event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party. 34
Decisions or resolutions must attain finality at some point and its attainment of
finality should not be made dependent on the will of a party.
In sum, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction attributable to the COMELEC in issuing NBC Resolution No. 10-
034 dated July 30, 2010 proclaiming Buhay Party-List as a winner in the May 10,
2010 elections on the basis of the final and executory Resolution dated June 15,
2010 denying the petition to disqualify private respondents.
III. Mandamus does not lie to compel the COMELEC En Banc to rule on
Layug’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing of an act specifically
enjoined by law as a duty.1âwphi1 It cannot compel the doing of an act involving
the exercise of discretion one way or the other. 35 Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court clearly provides:
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying
that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some
other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to
protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the COMELEC En Banc cannot be compelled to resolve Layug’s
Motion for Reconsideration36 of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 that was filed
on July 28, 2010 after said Resolution had already attained finality. In fact, the
COMELEC Second Division denied the same Motion in its Order 37 dated August
4, 2010 precisely for the reason that it was filed out of time.
It should likewise be pointed out that the aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration
was filed without the requisite notice of hearing. We have held time and again
that the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 4 38 and
539 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court renders the motion defective. As a rule, a
motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma.40 None of the
acceptable exceptions obtain in this case.
Moreover, the Motion was filed by a new counsel – Evasco, Abinales and Evasco
Law Offices – without a valid substitution or withdrawal of the former counsel.
Thus said the COMELEC:
5. In spite of the finding that petitioner's given address '#70 Dr. Pilapil St.,
Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City' cannot be found, a new counsel, 'Evasco
Abinales and Evasco Law Offices' filed on July 20, 2010, an 'ENTRY OF
APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL (for petitioner Layug) WITH MANIFESTATION', at
the bottom of which appear the name and signature of petitioner Roland D.
Layug expressing his conforme, with his given (sic) at the same '#70 Dr. Pilapil
St., Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City;' it is noted that the entry of appearance of
a new counsel is without the benefit of the withdrawal of the former counsel. 41
Considering, therefore, Layug's utter disregard of the rules of procedure for which
he deserves no empathy, the Court finds that the COMELEC exercised its
discretion within the bounds of the law thus warranting the dismissal of the
instant case.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.