Layug vs. COMELEC

A party who deliberately provides a false or incorrect address in his pleadings to avoid receiving court processes cannot subsequently claim denial of due process when he fails to receive notices mailed to that address; the principle of finality of judgments is a jurisdictional event that cannot be made to depend on the convenience or will of a party.

The case arises from the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections, specifically involving the party-list system. Petitioner Rolando D. Layug, acting as a taxpayer and concerned citizen, questioned the eligibility of Buhay Hayaan Yumabong Party-List (Buhay Party-List) and its nominee Mariano Velarde (Brother Mike), alleging that the party-list was merely an extension of the El Shaddai religious sect and that Brother Mike, as a billionaire real estate businessman, did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector required by law.

• Petitioner Rolando D. Layug filed pro se a Petition to Disqualify before the COMELEC Second Division on March 31, 2010, seeking to disqualify Buhay Party-List from participating in the 2010 elections and Mariano Velarde (Brother Mike) from being its nominee.
• Layug alleged that Buhay Party-List is a mere "extension of the El Shaddai," which is a religious sect, and thus disqualified under Section 5, Paragraph 2, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 6, Paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 7941.
• Layug further alleged that Brother Mike, allegedly a billionaire real estate businessman and spiritual leader of El Shaddai, does not qualify as "one who belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented sector" under Section 6(7) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8807.
• In his pro se petition, Layug stated his address as #70 Dr. Pilapil Street, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City.
• Respondents filed an Answer which was returned unserved after three attempts due to the inexistence of the given address.
• During the hearing on April 20, 2010, Layug's counsel, Atty. Rustico B. Gagate, manifested that Layug had not received the Answer and retorted that respondents could send pleadings to his address in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, but failed to formally provide a forwarding address or correct the records.
• The COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution on June 15, 2010 denying the petition for lack of substantial evidence, which was mailed to Layug at #70 Dr. Pilapil Street, Pasig City.
• The mail was returned unserved after three attempts (June 23, June 25, and June 28, 2010) with notations "unknown" and "RTS INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS."
• On July 26, 2010, the COMELEC Second Division issued an Order finding Layug to be a "phantom petitioner" who maintained a fictitious address to ensure he would not receive mails, and deemed him to have received the Resolution on June 23, 2010.
• The Resolution was declared final and executory on July 26, 2010, and entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment on July 28, 2010.
• On July 28, 2010, Layug filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc claiming denial of due process, alleging he only learned of the Resolution on July 26, 2010 from newspapers.
• The Motion for Reconsideration was filed without the requisite notice of hearing and by a new counsel (Evasco, Abinales and Evasco Law Offices) without a valid substitution or withdrawal of former counsel.
• On July 30, 2010, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated NBC Resolution No. 10-034 proclaiming Buhay Party-List as a winner entitled to two seats; Brother Mike, being the fifth nominee, was not proclaimed.

• The COMELEC Second Division violated procedural due process by failing to issue a notice of promulgation to petitioner's counsel as required by Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
• The COMELEC En Banc unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, which is to hear and decide the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration which was timely filed.
• Layug claimed he was denied due process because he only learned of the June 15, 2010 Resolution on July 26, 2010 from newspapers and personally secured a copy only on that date.
• Layug argued that he was not properly served with the Resolution dated June 15, 2010, and that the COMELEC should have served his counsel.

• With the proclamation of Buhay Party-List on July 30, 2010 and the assumption into office of its representatives, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) now has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over questions relating to their qualifications, not the Supreme Court.
• Layug provided an incorrect address to which a copy of the Resolution was duly sent, and by refusing to rectify the error when it was brought to his attention, he cannot now be heard to complain of denial of due process.
• Layug deliberately stated an inexistent address with the end in view of delaying the proceedings upon the plea of lack of due process, making a mockery of election laws.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the present petition or whether jurisdiction lies with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
  • Whether petitioner was denied due process when the COMELEC deemed him to have received the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 despite the registered mail being returned unserved
  • Whether mandamus lies to compel the COMELEC En Banc to rule on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing NBC Resolution No. 10-034 dated July 30, 2010 proclaiming Buhay Party-List as a winner despite the pending disqualification petition

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, not the HRET: Under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its Members. However, Members of the House are only those who have been elected and proclaimed. Brother Mike, being the fifth nominee, was not proclaimed and thus had not become a Member. Furthermore, the HRET has no jurisdiction over the qualifications of party-list organizations, which is vested by the Party-List System Act upon the COMELEC. The Court has jurisdiction under Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution to review COMELEC decisions via certiorari.
  • No denial of due process: A party who provides a false or incorrect address in his pleadings and deliberately avoids receiving court processes cannot claim denial of due process. Layug filed his petition pro se stating address #70 Dr. Pilapil Street, which was found to be inexistent. His refusal to rectify the error despite knowledge thereof indicates he deliberately stated a fictitious address to delay proceedings. He cannot profit from his own wrongdoing, and the finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party.
  • Mandamus does not lie: Mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty specifically enjoined by law, not to compel the performance of an act involving the exercise of discretion. The COMELEC En Banc cannot be compelled to resolve a Motion for Reconsideration filed after the resolution had already attained finality. Moreover, the motion was defective as it was filed without the requisite notice of hearing and by a new counsel without withdrawal or substitution of former counsel.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found 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, as it was based on the final and executory Resolution dated June 15, 2010 denying the petition to disqualify.

• Jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) — The HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives who have been proclaimed and assumed office; it does not have jurisdiction over the qualifications of party-list organizations before proclamation, which lies with the COMELEC under the Party-List System Act.
• Finality of judgments as a jurisdictional event — The finality of a decision or resolution is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party; decisions or resolutions must attain finality at some point and should not be made dependent on the will of a party.
• Deliberate failure to receive court processes — A party who provides a false or incorrect address in his pleadings and deliberately avoids receiving court processes cannot subsequently claim denial of due process; he cannot be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
• Nature of mandamus — Mandamus is a remedy available only to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty, and cannot compel the doing of an act involving the exercise of discretion one way or the other.

• "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."
• "He cannot thus be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing."
• "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."
• "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."

• Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal — Controlling precedent establishing that the HRET has no jurisdiction over qualifications of party-list organizations before proclamation; the COMELEC has jurisdiction under the Party-List System Act to hear disqualification cases against party-lists.
• Estrada v. People of the Philippines — Cited in support of the principle that providing an incorrect address defeats claims of denial of due process.
• Aguilar v. Court of Appeals — Cited regarding the principle that the finality of decisions is a jurisdictional event.
• Mateo v. Court of Appeals — Cited regarding the nature of mandamus as a remedy for ministerial duties only.
• Preysler, Jr. v. Manila Southcoast Development Corporation — Cited regarding the rule that motions without notice of hearing are considered pro forma.

• Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the HRET sole jurisdiction as the judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives.
• Section 5(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — Defines Members of the House of Representatives as those elected from legislative districts and those elected through the party-list system.
• Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court the power to review decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC via certiorari.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Grants the COMELEC authority to remove or cancel registration of party-list organizations, including on grounds that the organization is a religious sect or denomination.
• Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court — Requires every pleading to be signed by the party or counsel and to state the address which should not be a post office box.
• Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Defines the remedy of mandamus as applicable only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty.
• Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court — Mandate that every written motion must be set for hearing with notice served at least three days before the hearing.