Velasco vs. Belmonte Digest

Velasco vs.
Belmonte
G.R. No. 211140. January 12, 2016.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
FACTS:
On October 10, 2012, one Joseph Socorro Tan (Tan), a registered voter and resident of the
Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque, filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a
petition to deny due course or cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Reyes as candidate for
the position of Representative of the Lone District of the Province of Marinduque. In his
petition, Tan alleged that Reyes made several material misrepresentations in her COC, i.e., "(i) that
she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduque; (ii) that she is a natural-born Filipino
citizen; (iii) that she is not a permanent resident of, or an immigrant to, a foreign country; (iv) that
her date of birth is July 3, 1964; (v) that her civil status is single; and finally (vi) that she is eligible
for the office she seeks to be elected to." The case was docketed as SPA No. 13-053 (DC),
entitled "Joseph Socorro B. Tan v. Atty. Regina Ongsiako Reyes."
On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division resolved to grant the petition; hence, Reyes's COC
was accordingly cancelled.
On May 18, 2013, despite its receipt of the May 14, 2013 COMELEC Resolution, the Marinduque
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) proclaimed Reyes as the winner of the May 13, 2013
elections for the position of Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.
Subsequently, the May 18, 2013 proclamation of respondent REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES is declared
NULL and VOID and without any legal force and effect. Petitioner LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO is
hereby proclaimed the winning candidate for the position of representative in the House of
Representatives for the province of Marinduque.
Velasco alleges that despite all the letters and requests to Speaker Belmonte, Jr. and Sec. Gen.
Barua-Yap, they refused to recognize him as the duly elected Representative of the Lone District of
Marinduque. Likewise, in the face of numerous written demands for Reyes to vacate the position
and office of the Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque, she continues to discharge
the duties of said position.
Hence, the instant Petition for Mandamus with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel Speaker Belmonte to recognize
Velasco as the duly elected Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.
RULING:
Yes, the petition has merit. The difference between a ministerial and discretionary act has long
been established. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or
when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is
ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion
or judgment.
As the facts stand in this case, Speaker Belmonte, Jr. and Sec. Gen. Barua-Y ap have no discretion
whether or not to administer the oath of office to Velasco and to register the latter's name in the
Roll of Members of the House of Representatives, respectively. It is beyond cavil that there is in
existence final and executory resolutions of this Court in G.R. No. 207264 affirming the final and
executory resolutions of the COMELEC in SPA No. 13-053 (DC) cancelling Reyes's Certificate of
Candidacy. There is likewise a final and executory resolution of the COMELEC in SPC No. 13-010
declaring null and void the proclamation of Reyes, and proclaiming Velasco as the winning
candidate for the position of Representative for the Lone District of the Province of Marinduque.
The foregoing state of affairs collectively lead this Court to consider the facts as settled and beyond
dispute - Velasco is the proclaimed winning candidate for the Representative of the Lone District of
the Province of Marinduque.
That Velasco now has a well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant of the present petition
for mandamus is supported by the following undisputed facts that should be taken into consideration:
First. At the time of Reyes's proclamation, her COC was already cancelled by the COMELEC En Banc in its final finding
in its resolution dated May 14, 2013, the effectivity of which was not enjoined by this Court, as Reyes did not avail of
the prescribed remedy which is to seek a restraining order within a period of five (5) days as required by Section 13(b),
Rule 18 of COMELEC Rules. Since no restraining order was forthcoming, the PBOC should have refrained from
proclaiming Reyes.
Second. This Court upheld the COMELEC decision cancelling respondent Reyes's COC in its Resolutions of June 25,
2013 and October 22, 2013 and these Resolutions are already final and executory.
Third. As a consequence of the above events, the COMELEC in SPC No. 13-010 cancelled respondent Reyes's
proclamation and, in turn, proclaimed Velasco as the duly elected Member of the House of Representatives in
representation of the Lone District of the Province of Marinduque. The said proclamation has not been challenged or
questioned by Reyes in any proceeding.
Fourth. When Reyes took her oath of office before respondent Speaker Belmonte, Jr. in open session, Reyes
had NO valid COC NOR a valid proclamation.
Thus, to consider Reyes' s proclamation and treating it as a material fact in deciding this case will paradoxically alter
the well-established legal milieu between her and Velasco.
Fifth. In view of the foregoing, Reyes HAS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL BASIS to serve as a Member of the House of
Representatives for the Lone District of the Province of Marinduque, and therefore, she HAS NO LEGAL
PERSONALITY to be recognized as a party-respondent at a quo warranto proceeding before the HRET.

Velasco vs. Belmonte Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Velasco vs. Belmonte Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Velasco vs. Belmonte Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Velasco vs.

You might also like