Tañada, Jr. v. HRET

A final COMELEC En Banc ruling that a candidate is not a nuisance candidate cannot be relitigated in an HRET election protest; the HRET has no jurisdiction to declare a non-Member of the House a nuisance candidate, and only a timely certiorari petition to the SC can challenge that COMELEC ruling.

Wigberto, Tan, and Alvin John were candidates for Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Quezon in the 2013 National and Local Elections, with Wigberto and Alvin John sharing the surname Tañada. The legal backdrop includes Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code on nuisance candidates, Section 78 on cancellation of certificates of candidacy for false material representation, and Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution vesting the HRET with jurisdiction over contests involving Members of the House of Representatives.

For the 2013 National and Local Elections, three candidates filed their certificates of candidacy for Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Quezon: Wigberto R. Tañada, Jr. of the Liberal Party, Angelina D. Tan of the Nationalist People's Coalition, and Alvin John S. Tañada of Lapiang Manggagawa. In October 2012, Wigberto filed twin petitions with the COMELEC to cancel Alvin John's certificate of candidacy, docketed as SPA No. 13-056, and to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate, docketed as SPA No. 13-0357; the petitions were eventually consolidated. On January 29, 2013, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the consolidated petitions for lack of merit. Wigberto moved for reconsideration, alleging that Alvin John failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement, that Alvin John was a resident of Parañaque and was enrolled as a voter there until 4 June 2012 when he transferred his voter registration to Gumaca, Quezon, and that Alvin John's tweets and Facebook entries were bereft of any political plans or activities showing a true intention to run. On April 25, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc denied Wigberto's motion for reconsideration in SPA No. 13-057 but granted his motion for reconsideration in SPA No. 13-056, cancelling Alvin John's certificate of candidacy. Wigberto later sought reconsideration of the denial in SPA No. 13-057 to urge the declaration of Alvin John as a nuisance candidate on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

For the May 13, 2013 elections, Alvin John's name remained on the ballots. The canvass showed Tan with 84,782 votes, Wigberto with 80,698 votes, and Alvin John with 7,038 votes. On May 16, 2013, Wigberto filed with the Quezon Provincial Board of Canvassers a petition to correct manifest errors in the certificates of canvass, with an urgent motion to suspend canvass and/or proclamation, praying that the COMELEC direct the Quezon PBOC to consolidate in his favor the votes canvassed for Alvin John and to proclaim the candidate with the highest number of votes as the winner. The Quezon PBOC denied Wigberto's motion on the same date, holding that Alvin John's votes could not be counted in Wigberto's favor because the cancellation of Alvin John's certificate of candidacy was based on material misrepresentations under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, not on being a nuisance candidate under Section 69. The Quezon PBOC then proclaimed Tan as the winning candidate. On May 21, 2013, Wigberto filed a supplement to the petition with an additional prayer for annulment of proclamation, reiterating his prayer to be declared the winning candidate by consolidating Alvin John's votes with his. On May 27, 2013, Wigberto filed with the SC an ad cautelam petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with an urgent motion for a status quo ante order, docketed as G.R. Nos. 207199-200, asking the SC to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate and to order the COMELEC to credit Alvin John's votes to him.

On May 30, 2013, Wigberto filed with the HRET an election protest ad cautela, alleging that fraud was perpetrated through the fielding of Alvin John as a nuisance candidate. He alleged that lawyers who turned out to be counsel for Tan collaborated in support of Alvin John's candidacy; that Alvin John was not a resident of and never resided in the Fourth District of Quezon and had the intent to mislead, misinform, or deceive the electorate; that Alvin John was never seen campaigning, had no posters, did not attend any campaign rally or candidate's forum, and did not vote in the May 13, 2013 elections; that Alvin John never made a single post or tweet about his political plans; that the fraudulent fielding of Alvin John resulted in 7,038 votes for the only bona fide candidate with the surname Tañada, Wigberto; and that there was miscounting and mistabulation of the votes cast for Wigberto as votes for Alvin John in the ten Municipal Board of Canvassers of the Fourth District of Quezon and the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Quezon.

Meanwhile, on June 28, 2013, the COMELEC Second Division annulled Tan's proclamation and directed the Quezon PBOC to credit the 7,038 votes of Alvin John to Wigberto and to declare the winner after recomputation. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the action of the COMELEC Second Division, but Tan had by then taken her oath and assumed office past noon time of June 30, 2013, rendering the adverse resolution on her proclamation moot. On October 22, 2013, the SC promulgated its resolution in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 dismissing Wigberto's ad cautelam petition, holding that after Tan's proclamation, oath, and assumption of office, jurisdiction over election and returns issues lay with the HRET. The HRET thereafter directed Tan to submit her responsive pleading. Tan filed a verified answer with special and affirmative defenses and a counter-protest, praying that the HRET dismiss the election protest pursuant to Rule 16 in relation to Rule 21 of the 2011 HRET Rules for being grossly deficient in form and substance and on the ground that Wigberto was guilty of forum shopping. In his reply and answer to the counter-protest, Wigberto insisted that the SC had already declared in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 that the HRET had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance candidate and whether crediting Alvin John's votes to Wigberto constituted an election contest. On February 11, 2014, Tan filed her comment with motion to dismiss and/or set the case for preliminary hearing or oral argument; on February 27, 2014, the HRET granted Tan's motion to set oral arguments, and oral arguments were held on March 13, 2014.

The HRET promulgated its Resolution on September 25, 2014, dismissing Wigberto's election protest. Wigberto filed a motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2014, which the HRET denied in its Resolution dated January 22, 2015. Wigberto filed the present petition for certiorari on March 18, 2015.

• HRET Jurisdiction: Wigberto argued that the HRET gravely abused its discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily limited its own jurisdiction in election protests as defined by the Constitution, the law, and jurisprudence.
• Scope of Election Protest: Wigberto argued that the HRET gravely abused its discretion when it whimsically, capriciously, and arbitrarily declared that an election protest is limited to the opening of ballot boxes and the revision of ballots.
• Fraudulent Fielding of a Nuisance Candidate: Wigberto argued that the HRET gravely abused its discretion when it declared that it cannot look into the fraudulent fielding of a nuisance candidate by Tan because it has no power to review, modify, or reverse the factual finding of the COMELEC on nuisance candidates.
• Effect of Prior SC Ruling: Wigberto insisted that the SC had already declared in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 that the HRET had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance candidate and whether crediting Alvin John's votes to Wigberto constituted an election contest.

• Insufficiency in Form and Substance: Tan argued that the election protest should be dismissed under Rule 16 in relation to Rule 21 of the 2011 HRET Rules for being grossly deficient in form and substance.
• Forum Shopping: Tan argued that Wigberto was guilty of forum shopping.

• Finality and Timeliness of the COMELEC Nuisance Ruling: Whether the COMELEC En Banc's 25 April 2013 resolution declaring Alvin John not a nuisance candidate became final and executory, barring Wigberto from raising the issue again in the HRET and the SC.
• HRET Jurisdiction over Nuisance Candidacy: Whether the HRET has jurisdiction to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate in an election protest.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the HRET gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Wigberto's election protest.

• Finality and Timeliness of the COMELEC Nuisance Ruling: Yes. The COMELEC En Banc's 25 April 2013 ruling became final and executory; Wigberto filed a prohibited motion for reconsideration and filed his SC petition beyond the five-day period under Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules.
• HRET Jurisdiction over Nuisance Candidacy: No. The HRET has no jurisdiction to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate because its jurisdiction is limited to Members of the House of Representatives, and Alvin John was not a Member.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The HRET correctly dismissed the protest on the grounds of finality and lack of jurisdiction; no grave abuse of discretion attended its action.

• Finality and Timeliness of the COMELEC Nuisance Ruling: The SC held that Wigberto committed several fatal procedural errors. First, he filed a prohibited pleading: a motion for reconsideration of a resolution of the COMELEC En Banc. Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure specifically prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases. Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc ruling became final and executory, precluding Wigberto from raising again in any other forum Alvin John's nuisance candidacy as an issue. Second, Wigberto filed his petition beyond the period provided by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC En Banc promulgated its resolution on Alvin John's alleged nuisance candidacy on 25 April 2013; Wigberto filed his petition in G.R. Nos. 207199-200 before the SC on 27 May 2013, by which date the COMELEC En Banc's resolution was already final and executory. Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that decisions in nuisance candidate cases shall become final and executory after the lapse of five days from their promulgation unless restrained by the SC. What Wigberto should have done was to file a petition for certiorari with the SC within five days from promulgation of the 25 April 2013 resolution of the COMELEC En Banc. He failed to timely assail that resolution.

• HRET Jurisdiction over Nuisance Candidacy: The SC held that the HRET did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in declaring that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance candidate. If Wigberto had timely filed a petition before the SC within the period allotted for special actions and questioned Alvin John's nuisance candidacy, it would have been proper for the SC to assume jurisdiction and rule on the matter. As things stood, the COMELEC En Banc's ruling on Alvin John's nuisance candidacy had long become final and executory. The SC found that Wigberto's petition challenging Alvin John's nuisance candidacy filed before the HRET, and now before the SC, was a mere afterthought; it was only after Tan was proclaimed a winner that Wigberto renewed his zeal in pursuing Alvin John's alleged nuisance candidacy. The SC stressed that it is not enough for Wigberto to have Alvin John's certificate of candidacy cancelled, because the effect of such cancellation only leads to stray votes; Alvin John must also be declared a nuisance candidate, because only then will Alvin John's votes be credited to Wigberto. The SC also rejected Wigberto's claim that the SC had directed him to seek resolution of the nuisance candidacy issue before the HRET; the SC had directed him to the HRET to question the conduct of the canvass and Tan's proclamation, not the nuisance candidacy. The HRET's jurisdiction is limited by Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution and Rule 15 of the 2011 HRET Rules to Members of the House of Representatives, and Alvin John was not a Member.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only for grave abuse of discretion. The HRET's dismissal rested on the final and executory COMELEC En Banc ruling on Alvin John's nuisance candidacy and on the HRET's lack of jurisdiction over a non-Member. Wigberto's disagreement with those conclusions does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

• Finality of COMELEC En Banc rulings in nuisance candidacy cases — Under Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, decisions in nuisance candidate cases become final and executory after five days from promulgation unless restrained by the SC, and Section 1(d), Rule 13 prohibits a motion for reconsideration of an En Banc ruling except in election offense cases. The SC applied this to hold that the COMELEC En Banc's 25 April 2013 ruling that Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate became final, and Wigberto's later motion for reconsideration and belated SC petition did not prevent finality.
• HRET jurisdiction limited to Members of the House — Under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 15 of the 2011 HRET Rules, the HRET's power to judge election contests is limited to Members of the House of Representatives. The SC applied this to hold that the HRET had no jurisdiction to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate because he was not a Member.
• Nuisance declaration as condition for crediting votes — Cancellation of a candidate's certificate of candidacy for material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code does not by itself entitle a same-surname bona fide candidate to the cancelled candidate's votes; the candidate must first be declared a nuisance candidate, because only then are the votes credited to the bona fide candidate. The SC applied this to hold that Alvin John's 7,038 votes could not be credited to Wigberto because the COMELEC En Banc had ruled that Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate.
• Election protest not a substitute for timely certiorari — A final COMELEC ruling on nuisance candidacy cannot be relitigated through an HRET election protest; the proper remedy is a timely petition for certiorari to the SC. The SC applied this to hold that Wigberto's HRET protest and SC petition were afterthoughts.

• "It is not enough for Wigberto to have Alvin John's COC cancelled, because the effect of such cancellation only leads to stray votes. Alvin John must also be declared a nuisance candidate, because only then will Alvin John's votes be credited to Wigberto." — This states the core reason why the cancellation of Alvin John's certificate of candidacy did not entitle Wigberto to the 7,038 votes.
• "The HRET did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in declaring that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance candidate." — This is the SC's direct holding on the jurisdictional issue.
• "Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure specifically prohibits the filing of a 'motion for reconsideration of an en bane ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases.'" — This anchors the SC's finality ruling against Wigberto's motion for reconsideration.
• "If Wigberto timely filed a petition before this Court within the period allotted for special actions and questioned Alvin John's nuisance candidacy, then it is proper for this Court to assume jurisdiction and rule on the matter. As things stand, the COMELEC En Banc's ruling on Alvin John's nuisance candidacy had long become final and executory." — This explains the proper remedy and why the nuisance issue could no longer be raised.

• Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, 22 October 2013, 708 SCRA 188 — Prior SC ruling in the same controversy; held that after Tan's proclamation, oath, and assumption of office, jurisdiction over election and returns issues lay with the HRET, and the SC later relied on it to show that the nuisance issue was not among those referred to the HRET.
• Dela Cruz vs. Commission on Elections, 698 Phil. 548 (2012) — Cited as the ruling that prompted COMELEC Resolution No. 9599, which distinguishes stray votes from votes credited to a bona fide same-surname candidate when a nuisance candidate is declared.

• Article VI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Vests the HRET with sole jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives; applied to hold that the HRET cannot declare a non-Member like Alvin John a nuisance candidate.
• Section 69, Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Defines nuisance candidates and allows the COMELEC to refuse due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy; invoked by Wigberto but the COMELEC En Banc ruled that Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate.
• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — Allows cancellation of a certificate of candidacy for false material representation; the COMELEC cancelled Alvin John's certificate under this provision, not under Section 69, so the cancellation alone did not make him a nuisance candidate.
• Section 1(d), Rule 13, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Prohibits a motion for reconsideration of an En Banc ruling, resolution, order, or decision except in election offense cases; applied to render the 25 April 2013 ruling final.
• Section 3, Rule 37, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that decisions in nuisance candidate cases become final and executory after five days from promulgation unless restrained by the SC; applied to bar Wigberto's 27 May 2013 petition.
• Rule 15, 2011 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal — Limits the HRET's power to judge election contests to Members of the House of Representatives; applied with Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646 — Provides for the effect of a disqualification case; cited in relation to the rule that cancellation of Alvin John's certificate of candidacy did not automatically credit his votes to Wigberto.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 9599 — Amends Rule 24 and provides that votes for a nuisance candidate with the same name or surname as a bona fide candidate are counted for the bona fide candidate, while votes for other nuisance candidates are stray; applied to show that a nuisance declaration was the precondition for crediting Alvin John's votes.

• Justice Perez (Concurring) — He concurred in the dismissal, emphasizing that Wigberto's claim depended on a prior declaration that Alvin John was a nuisance candidate; the HRET lacks authority to make that declaration because its jurisdiction is limited to election protests and quo warranto cases over Members, and it has no appellate jurisdiction over the COMELEC En Banc. He also noted that under Reyes vs. COMELEC, HRET jurisdiction requires a valid proclamation, oath, and assumption of office, and Alvin John never became a Member.