Reyes v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 120905, 120940 (March 7, 1996)

Renato U. Reyes was disqualified from the mayoral race; Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Facts:

Petitioner Renato U. Reyes was the incumbent mayor of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, having been elected on May 11, 1992. On October 26, 1994, an administrative complaint was filed against him by Dr. Ernesto Manalo, alleging various misconducts, including the collection of P50,000 from market stall holders, failure to account for checks from the National Reconciliation and Development Program, and the appropriation of cattle from beneficiaries of a dispersal program.

On February 6, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan found Reyes guilty of these charges and ordered his removal from office. However, Reyes contested this decision by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction with the Regional Trial Court, which issued a temporary restraining order on February 7, 1995, preventing the Sangguniang Panlalawigan from enforcing its decision.

Despite the restraining order, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan attempted to serve the decision to Reyes, but he and his counsel refused to accept it. On March 23, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ordered Reyes to vacate his position, but he continued to refuse service. Reyes filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor on March 20, 1995, and subsequently won the election held on May 8, 1995.

On May 9, 1995, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued a resolution disqualifying Reyes from running for office based on his removal from office due to the administrative case. The Municipal Board of Canvassers, unaware of this disqualification, proclaimed Reyes as the duly elected mayor on May 10, 1995. Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the COMELEC en banc on July 3, 1995.

Meanwhile, Julius O. Garcia, who received the second highest number of votes, sought to be proclaimed mayor based on Reyes' disqualification. The COMELEC denied Garcia's request, leading to the filing of separate petitions for certiorari by both Reyes and Garcia.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which ordered Reyes' removal, was final and executory despite Reyes' refusal to accept service.
  2. Whether Reyes' reelection rendered the administrative charges against him moot and academic.
  3. Whether Garcia, as the second highest candidate, could be proclaimed mayor following Reyes' disqualification.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner Reyes' Arguments:

    • The decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was not final because he had not been properly served with the decision.
    • The administrative charges were rendered moot by his reelection, citing the Aguinaldo v. Santos ruling, which states that reelection condones prior misconduct.
    • He argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying him after the election.

  • Respondents' Arguments (COMELEC and Garcia):

    • The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's decision was validly served despite Reyes' refusal to accept it, and thus it became final and executory.
    • The Local Government Code disqualifies individuals removed from office due to administrative cases from running for office, which applied to Reyes.
    • Garcia contended that he should be proclaimed mayor as Reyes was disqualified, and the COMELEC's failure to act before the election did not invalidate the votes cast for Reyes.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for lack of merit.

  1. On the Finality of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's Decision:

    • The Court held that service of the decision was completed despite Reyes' refusal to accept it. The repeated attempts to serve the decision and the subsequent return of the registered mail indicated that Reyes was sufficiently notified. The Court emphasized that a party cannot evade the consequences of a decision by refusing to accept service.

  2. On the Mootness of Administrative Charges:

    • The Court distinguished Reyes' case from Aguinaldo v. Santos, stating that Reyes' administrative removal was final before the election, thus disqualifying him from running again. The Local Government Code's provision disqualifying those removed from office applied, and Reyes' reelection did not retroactively nullify the administrative decision.

  3. On Garcia's Claim:

    • The Court reaffirmed that a candidate who finishes second cannot be declared the winner if the first-place candidate is disqualified. The votes cast for Reyes were valid as they were cast in the belief that he was qualified at the time of the election.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The refusal to accept service of a decision does not invalidate the service if proper attempts have been made.
  • Reelection does not automatically moot administrative disqualifications if the disqualification is final before the election.
  • The principle that the second highest candidate cannot be declared the winner if the first candidate is disqualified, as the electoral conditions would have changed significantly.