Lokin, Jr. vs. COMELEC

A petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court seeking review of COMELEC judgments must be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment, and the fresh-period rule applicable to Rule 65 does not extend to Rule 64, the shorter period being constitutionally rooted in the mandate for prompt determination of election results.

CIBAC is a multi-sectoral party registered under Republic Act No. 7941, the Party-List System Act, with a platform of fighting graft and corruption and promoting ethical conduct in public service. Its highest policy-making and governing body is the National Council, which under the party's Constitution and bylaws has the power to formulate policies, plans, and programs, and to issue decisions and resolutions binding on party members and officers. A separate non-stock entity, "CIBAC Foundation, Inc.," was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2003 as the party's legal and financial arm, but was never intended to substitute for or oust the party-list organization itself. The party participated in the 2001, 2004, and 2007 elections under the leadership of the National Council.

On November 20, 2009, two different entities purporting to represent CIBAC submitted to the COMELEC a "Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the May 10, 2010 Elections." The first Manifestation was signed by Pia B. Derla, who claimed to be the party's acting secretary-general. At 1:30 p.m. of the same day, another Manifestation was submitted by respondents Cinchona Cruz-Gonzales and Virginia Jose as the party's vice-president and secretary-general, respectively. On January 15, 2010, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8744 giving due course to CIBAC's Manifestation, without prejudice to the determination of which of the two factions was the official representative of the party-list.

On January 19, 2010, respondents, led by President and Chairperson Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted the Certificate of Nomination of CIBAC to the COMELEC Law Department, certified by Villanueva and Virginia S. Jose. On March 26, 2010, Pia Derla submitted a second Certificate of Nomination, which included petitioners Luis Lokin, Jr. and Teresita Planas as party-list nominees, affixing her signature as "acting secretary-general" of CIBAC. According to the National Council's records, the Council had met on November 12, 2009, and with a quorum present, elected Villanueva as Party President and Chairman and Jose as Secretary General. During the same meeting, the party's New Electoral Congress unanimously delegated to Villanueva the function of choosing the party's nominees for the party-list elections.

Claiming that the nomination of petitioners was unauthorized, respondents filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Expunge From The Records And/Or For Disqualification," seeking to nullify the Certificate filed by Derla. Respondents contended that Derla had misrepresented herself as "acting secretary-general" when she was not even a member of CIBAC, and that the documents she submitted were unauthorized by the party. Petitioners, for their part, insisted that the group that participated in the 2004 and 2007 elections was the SEC-registered entity "CIBAC Foundation, Inc.," whose Board of Trustees had purportedly authorized Derla to file the Certificate of Nomination, and that the National Council had become defunct since 2003 when the foundation was established and registered with the SEC.

In the Resolution dated July 5, 2010, the COMELEC First Division granted the Petition, ordered the Certificate filed by Derla to be expunged from the records, and declared respondents' faction as the true nominees of CIBAC. The Division found that Derla's alleged authority was unsubstantiated and devoid of supporting evidence, while respondents presented overwhelming evidence that Villanueva had deputized Jose to submit the Certificate of Nomination pursuant to CIBAC's Constitution and bylaws. Petitioners received a copy of this Resolution on July 12, 2010, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 15, 2010. The COMELEC en banc issued a per curiam Resolution on August 31, 2010, affirming the Division's findings, which petitioners received on September 1, 2010. Petitioners filed the present Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on October 1, 2010.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioners contended that the COMELEC never should have taken cognizance of respondents' Petition to Expunge and/or for Disqualification, characterizing the matter as an intra-corporate dispute cognizable only by special commercial courts, particularly the designated commercial court in the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City.
• Authority of Derla: Petitioners argued that Pia Derla filed the Certificate of Nomination pursuant to the authority granted by the Board of Trustees of "CIBAC Foundation, Inc.," the non-stock entity registered with the SEC, and that this SEC-registered entity was the group that participated in the 2004 and 2007 elections.
• Defunct National Council: Petitioners maintained that the National Council of CIBAC had become defunct since 2003, the year CIBAC Foundation, Inc. was established and registered with the SEC, and that the Board of Trustees of the SEC-registered entity had supplanted the National Council as the governing authority.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in issuing both Resolutions, praying that they be recognized as the legitimate nominees of CIBAC party-list and that petitioner Lokin, Jr. be proclaimed as the CIBAC party-list representative to the House of Representatives.

• Nature of Foundation: Respondents countered that CIBAC Foundation, Inc. was established solely for the purpose of acting as CIBAC's legal and financial arm, as provided by the party's Constitution and bylaws, and was never intended to substitute for, or oust CIBAC, the party-list itself.
• Authority of Villanueva: Respondents argued that Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, as Party President and Chairman, was duly authorized to file the Certificate of Nomination on behalf of CIBAC pursuant to the party's Constitution and bylaws, and that the National Council had validly delegated to him the function of choosing nominees during its November 12, 2009 meeting.

• Timeliness: Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period prescribed by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the authority of Secretary General Virginia Jose to file the party's Certificate of Nomination is an intra-corporate matter exclusively cognizable by special commercial courts, and over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction.
• Merit of COMELEC Ruling: Whether the COMELEC erred in granting the Petition for Disqualification and recognizing respondents as the properly authorized nominees of CIBAC party-list.

• Timeliness: No. The petition was filed on October 1, 2010, outside the thirty-day reglementary period prescribed by Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, the fresh-period rule under Rule 65 not applying to Rule 64.
• Jurisdiction: No. The COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes and the nomination of party-list representatives as an incident of its constitutional power to enforce election laws and register political parties under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution.
• Merit of COMELEC Ruling: No. No grave abuse of discretion was attributable to the COMELEC, which correctly found that Derla lacked authority to file the Certificate of Nomination and that respondents' faction was duly authorized pursuant to CIBAC's Constitution and bylaws.

• Timeliness: Rule 64 specifically governs the review of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit. While Rule 64 adopts the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65, Section 3 of Rule 64 prescribes a thirty-day period from notice of the judgment, shorter than the sixty-day period under Rule 65. The fresh-period rule applicable to Rule 65 does not extend to Rule 64, as established in Pates vs. Commission on Elections, where the Court reasoned that the constitutional mandate under Section 3, Article IX-C requiring expeditious disposition of election cases supports the retention of the shorter period. Petitioners received the COMELEC en banc Resolution on September 1, 2010. After deducting the three days consumed by the Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 15, 2010, they had a remaining period of twenty-seven days, or until September 28, 2010, within which to file the petition. Having filed on October 1, 2010, the petition was clearly out of time. Petitioners offered no explanation for the late filing despite their own invocation of Rule 64 in conjunction with Rule 65, negating any basis for liberal construction.

• Jurisdiction: The COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes is well established. In Laban ng Demokratikong Filipino vs. Commission on Elections, the Court held that the COMELEC has the power and duty to step in when a candidate misrepresents party affiliation, to protect both the party and the electorate in line with its broad constitutional mandate to ensure orderly elections. In Atienza vs. Commission on Elections, citing Kalaw vs. Commission on Elections and Palmares vs. Commission on Elections, the Court expressly settled that the COMELEC's powers under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution include ascertaining the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts, and that its power to register political parties necessarily involves the determination of the persons who must act on its behalf. Sections 8 and 9 of R.A. No. 7941 further vest the COMELEC with jurisdiction over the nomination of party-list representatives and prescribe the qualifications of each nominee. Petitioners' own submission of the Certificate of Nomination and Manifestation of Intent to the COMELEC recognized its authority under the Party-List System Act, contradicting their characterization of the dispute as purely intra-corporate.

• Merit of COMELEC Ruling: The COMELEC correctly found that Pia Derla's alleged authority as "acting secretary-general" was an unsubstantiated allegation devoid of supporting evidence. Petitioners submitted no documentary evidence that Derla was a member of CIBAC, let alone the representative authorized by the party to submit its Certificate of Nomination. Derla, not being a member of CIBAC, was a virtual stranger to the party-list and clearly not qualified to attest to petitioners as nominees. The CIBAC Constitution expressly mandates that the National Council, as the governing body, has the power to formulate policies and issue binding decisions on party members and officers. The National Council met on November 12, 2009, with a quorum present, elected Villanueva as Party President and Chairman and Jose as Secretary General, and the New Electoral Congress unanimously delegated to Villanueva the function of choosing nominees. Respondents presented overwhelming documentary evidence, including the Joint Affidavit of Resolutions, the Certificate of Deputization and Delegation of Authority, the Constitution and By-Laws, and the Manifestation of official officers. The National Council had not become defunct and was not replaced by the Board of Trustees of the SEC-registered entity. Petitioners could not use SEC registration as a substitute for the evidentiary requirement to show that the nominees, including Derla, were bona fide members of the party, nor could they draw authority from the Board of Trustees when the CIBAC Constitution vests governing power in the National Council.

• Rule 64 Reglementary Period — A petition for certiorari under Rule 64 seeking review of COMELEC or Commission on Audit judgments must be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration interrupts this period; if denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial. The fresh-period rule under Rule 65 — which grants a full 60-day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration — does not apply to Rule 64. The Court applied this doctrine by computing the remaining period after the motion for reconsideration (27 days from receipt of the en banc Resolution) and finding the petition was filed three days late, warranting dismissal.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction Over Intra-Party Leadership Disputes — The COMELEC has jurisdiction to settle intra-party leadership disputes as an incident of its constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and to register political parties. This includes ascertaining the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts, and determining which officer or member is duly authorized to file certificates of nomination or candidacy on the party's behalf. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the COMELEC properly took cognizance of the dispute over who was authorized to file CIBAC's Certificate of Nomination, rejecting petitioners' characterization of the matter as a purely intra-corporate dispute cognizable only by special commercial courts.

• "While Rule 64 refers to the same remedy of certiorari as the general rule in Rule 65, they cannot be equated, as they provide for different reglementary periods." — This passage distinguishes Rule 64 from Rule 65 and establishes that the two rules, though sharing the same remedy of certiorari, prescribe different filing periods, which is the ratio decidendi for the dismissal of the petition on timeliness grounds.

• "The COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes has already been settled by the Court. The Court ruled in Kalaw v. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC's powers and functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, 'include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts.'" — This passage articulates the doctrinal basis for COMELEC jurisdiction over intra-party disputes, citing the constitutional provision and synthesizing prior jurisprudence into a canonical formulation frequently relied upon in subsequent election-law cases.

• "The reason, as made clear above, is constitutionally-based and is no less than the importance our Constitution accords to the prompt determination of election results." — This passage explains the constitutional rationale for retaining the shorter reglementary period under Rule 64, tying the procedural rule to the mandate for expeditious disposition of election cases under Article IX-C of the Constitution.

• Pates vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009 — Controlling precedent establishing that the fresh-period rule under Rule 65 does not apply to Rule 64; the Court followed and applied it to dismiss the petition as filed out of time, adopting its reasoning that the constitutional mandate for prompt election-case disposition justifies the shorter period.
• Domingo vs. Commission on Elections, 372 Phil. 188 (1999) — Cited alongside Pates regarding the timeliness of petitions under Rule 64, reinforcing the rule that late filing warrants dismissal.
• Laban ng Demokratikong Filipino vs. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 70 (2004) — Followed; established that the COMELEC has the power and duty to step in when a candidate misrepresents party affiliation, to protect both the party and the electorate, and that the COMELEC may determine which officer is authorized to sign certificates of candidacy.
• Atienza vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188920, February 16, 2010 — Followed; expressly settled that the COMELEC possesses authority to resolve intra-party disputes as a necessary incident of its constitutional power to enforce election laws and register political parties.
• Kalaw vs. Commission on Elections — Cited via Atienza; held that the COMELEC's powers under Section 2, Article IX-C include ascertaining the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers.
• Palmares vs. Commission on Elections — Cited via Atienza; upheld the COMELEC's jurisdiction over intra-party disputes, confirming that its power to register political parties necessarily involves determining the persons who must act on the party's behalf.

• Section 3, Rule 64, Rules of Court — Prescribes the thirty-day reglementary period for filing petitions for certiorari from judgments of the COMELEC and the Commission on Audit, with provision for interruption by a motion for reconsideration and a minimum remaining period of five days. Applied to determine that the petition was filed out of time, as petitioners had only twenty-seven days remaining after their motion for reconsideration but filed three days beyond the deadline.
• Section 2, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Vests the COMELEC with the power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, and to register political parties, organizations, or coalitions. Applied as the constitutional basis for COMELEC jurisdiction over intra-party leadership disputes and the authority to ascertain the identity of a political party's legitimate officers.
• Sections 8 and 9, Republic Act No. 7941 (Party-List System Act) — Section 8 governs the nomination of party-list representatives and the submission of nominee lists to the COMELEC; Section 9 prescribes the qualifications of party-list nominees. Applied to confirm the COMELEC's jurisdiction over the nomination process and the evidentiary requirements for establishing bona fide membership.
• Section 6, COMELEC Rules on Disqualification Cases Against Nominees of Party-List Groups/Organizations — Requires documentary evidence proving that nominees truly belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors and are bona fide members of the party-list organization for at least ninety days prior to the election. Applied to underscore the evidentiary requirements petitioners failed to satisfy, as they submitted no proof that Derla or the nominees were bona fide members of CIBAC.

Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concurred. Velasco, Jr., J., took no part due to relationship to a party. Mendoza, J., was on leave.