REYES V.

COMELEC

Facts:

 Renato Reyes (petitioner) was the incumbent Mayor of the municipality of Bongabong, Oriental
Mindoro.
 October 26, 1994, an administrative complaint was filed against him by Dr. Ernesto Manalo. It
was alleged that:
o Petitioner collected 50,000 from each market stall holder in the public market.
o Checks issued to him by National Reconciliation and Development Program of the
Department of the Interior and Local government were never received by the Municipal
Treasurer nor reflected in the books of accounts of the same officer.
o And he took 27 heads of cattle.
 When the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was about to render judgment, petitioner Reyes filed a
petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction with the RTC alleging that the proceedings had
been terminated without giving him a chance to be heard.
 The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found petitioner guilty and ordered his removal from office.
 A TRO was issued by the court enjoining Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Thus, the decision could not
be served to petitioner.
 When the TRO was about to expire, an attempt was made to serve the decision upon
petitioner’s counsel in Manila. The latter refused to accept the decision.
 March 23, 1995, Vice Governor Reyes, issued an order for petitioner to vacate the position of
mayor and turn over the office to the incumbent vice mayor.
 Petitioner Reyes filed a certificate of candidacy with the Office of the COMELEC .
 Private respondent Rogelio De Castro sought the disqualification of petitioner Reyes as
candidate citing RA 7160 Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code. But nonetheless, petitioner
Reyes was voted for in the elections on May 8, 1995.
 May 9, 1995, the COMELEC’s Second Division issued a resolution for the disqualification of
petitioner Reyes and that his certificate of candidacy is cancelled.
 The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongabong was unaware of the disqualification of
petitioner Reyes by the COMELEC, proclaimed him the duly-elected mayor.
 On the other hand, it appears that Garcia obtained the 2 nd highest number of votes. He
contended that because of Reyes’ disqualification, he is entitled to be proclaimed mayor of
Bongabong.
 COMELEC denied. Hence, this petition

Issue:

(1) WON the filing of petition for certiorari prevented the Sangguniang Panlalawigan from
attaining finality.
(2) WON Reyes’ reelection rendered the administrative complaint against him moot and
academic.
(3) WON Garcia is entitled to be proclaimed mayor of Bongabong

Held:
 (1) NO. the filing of a petition for certiorari with the RTC did not prevent the administrative decision
from attaining finality. An original action for certiorari is an independent action and does not
interrupt the course of the principal action nor the running of the reglementary period
involved in the proceeding. In the case at bar, although a temporary restraining order was
issued by the RTC, no preliminary injunction was subsequently issued. The TRO expired after
20 days. From that moment on, there was no more legal barrier to the service of the decision
to the petitioner. The net result is that when the elections were held on May 8, 1995, the
decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has become final.
(2) NO. Petitioner Reyes was given a period of 61 days to file his verified answer. However, he
resorted to dilatory motions which in the end proved fatal to his cause. He neither filed nor
furnished the complainant a copy of his answer. Failure to file his verified answer within 15
days from receipt of the complaint shall be considered as a waiver of his rights to present
evidence. In this case, it appears that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to file for his
answer. He was told that the complainant would be presenting his evidence and that
petitioner would then have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, but on the date
set, he failed to appear.
(3) NO. the candidate who obtains the 2nd highest number of votes may not be proclaimed
winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified. A second placer lost the elections. He was
repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first
among qualified candidates because in a file which excludes the disqualified candidate, the
conditions would have substantially changed.

AMORA V. COMELEC

Facts:

 Petitioner Sergio Amora filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Candijay, Bohol. She had
been elected to the post in the years 2004 and 2007.
 Respondent Olandria was one of the candidates for councilor of the NPC in the same
municipality.
 Later, Olandria filed to the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against amora. Alleging that
Amora’s COC was not properly sworn contrary to the requirements of the OEC and the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. She merely presented his Community Tax Certificate to the notary
public.
 Amora countered that:
o That it should be a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
Effectively the petition filed by Olandria is filed out of time.
o It does not constitute a proper ground for the cancellation of the COC
 The second division of the COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified Amora from running
for Mayor of Candijay, Bohol.
 Amora filed a motion for reconsideration. In the latter’s affidavit:
o The second division’s ruling is contrary to the objectives and principles of election laws.
o The CTC of Amora is accepted because Atty. Granada personally knows him.
 o The COC filed by amora does not lack the required formality of an oath. No reason to
nullify.
 On the national and local elections, Amora obtained 8,688 votes while Olandria 6,053 votes.
Amora was proclaimed the winner for the position of Municipal Mayor.
 Motion for reconsideration was denied.
 Hence this petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion to the COMELEC.

Issue:

WON Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding Olandria’s claim that an improperly
sworn COC is equivalent to possession of a ground for disqualification

Held:

YES. It was grave abuse of discretion to uphold Olandria’s claim that an improperly sworn COC is
equivalent to possession of a ground for