FRANCIS KING L. MARQUEZ, ​Petitioner​, v. HON.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
HON. NOLI C. DIAZ, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 80,
Muntinlupa City, and LIBERTY SANTOS, ​Respondents​.

DECISION

PURISIMA, ​J.​:

Before the Court is a Petition for ​Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Francis King L.
Marquez, assailing the 19 November 1996 Resolution 1 of the COMELEC En Banc 2 in
SPR No. 15-96, entitled "Francis King L. Marquez v. Noli C. Diaz, Presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 80, Muntinlupa City, and Liberty Santos", which
Resolution upheld the jurisdiction of respondent Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to hear
and decide the case of disqualification by reason of age against the herein petitioner.​ cralawnad

The COMELEC Resolution sets forth the relevant facts as follows:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"During the May 6, 1996 SK elections, Francis King L. Marquez and Liberty Santos ran
as candidates for the position of SK Chairman of Barangay Putatan, Muntinlupa City.
Marquez garnered the highest number of votes and was proclaimed SK Chairman on
election day, May 6, 1996​.

On May 16, 1996, private respondent filed an election protest before the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Br. 80, Muntinlupa City, impugning the election of petitioner (then
protestee) on the ground that the latter is disqualified by ​age to the office of SK
Chairman​.

In its order of May 24, 1996, the trial court found the protest sufficient in form and
substance. It issued a ​Temporary Restraining Order commanding petitioner to refrain
from taking his oath of office as SK Chairman of Barangay Putatan, Muntinlupa City​.
However, on May 27, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the election protest with
prayer for the cancellation of hearing. He stated that the ​averments in the election
protest are limited only on the issue of whether or not Marquez is eligible or qualified to
assume the office of SK Chairman such that private respondent’s right of action is a quo
warranto proceeding although captioned as election protest​. He sought the dismissal of
the election protest on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the
subject of the action and that protestant failed to comply with SC Administrative
Circular No. 04-94.

As to his first assignment of error, he ​contended that the May 6, 1996 SK elections are
primarily governed by COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 to the effect that the trial court’s
jurisdiction is confined only to frauds, irregularities and anomalies in the conduct of the
SK elections and that the determination of eligibility or qualification of a candidate for
SK elections is vested with the election officer concerned under Section 6 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2824​. And as to the second assignment of error, petitioner alleged that
private respondent did not mention that she had previously filed a petition involving the
same issue and parties with the Election Officer of Muntinlupa whose office according to
petitioner, is considered a quasi-judicial agency of the government.

In his (sic) opposition, private respondent argued that the term "election protest"
should not be taken in such restrictive sense as to limit its definition to only such acts
pertaining to the manner or conduct of the election and the attending circumstances
surrounding the casting and counting of ballots. Such term, according to her, should be
given the widest possible scope as to include all such questions arising from or relative
to the election held. On the question of non-compliance with the Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 04-94, she stated that the failure of the election officer of
Muntinlupa to resolve the question of qualification of Marquez prompted her to file an
election protest such that upon the filing of the same, there is no pending action over
the same issue lodged with any tribunal or agency to speak of.

On June 4, 1996, respondent judge issued an order dismissing the Motion to Dismiss
and set the hearing of the case accordingly. The trial court interpreted the provision of
Sec. 6 of Comelec Resolution No. 2824 as referring to those cases filed before the SK
elections and do not cover those cases filed after the election of candidates. It ruled
that quo warranto proceedings fall under its jurisdiction within the purview of Sec. 253,
par. 2 of the Omnibus Election Code, and that the failure of the Election Officer of
Muntinlupa to act on the complaint warranted the filing by the protestant Liberty
Santos) of a petition for quo warranto with the Metropolitan Trial Court o Muntinlupa
under the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies." 3

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Resolution, petitioner filed the present Petition for
Certiorari​ and Prohibition alleging that:​
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 80, MUNTINLUPA CITY, PRESIDED BY PUBLIC
RESPONDENT JUDGE, HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE A DISQUALIFICATION
CASE, BY REASON OF AGE IN RELATION TO THE MAY 6, 1996 SANGGUNIANG
KABATAAN (SK) ELECTIONS.

Petitioner contends that Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 is controlling.

Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 4 provides:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Qualifications of Elective Members. — An elective official of the SK must be:​ chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) a registered voter;

(b) a resident in the barangay for at least one (1) year immediately prior to the
elections; and

(c) able to read and write Filipino, any Philippine language or dialect or English.

Cases involving the eligibility or qualification of candidates shall be decided by the

city/municipal Election Officer (EO), whose decision shall be final."​ ​ chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

On the other hand, Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code reads:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Petition for Quo Warranto. — Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or
barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Regional Trial Court or
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court, respectively, within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election."​ c​ralaw virtua1aw library

We hold that Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code applies. R. A. 7808, which took
effect on September 2, 1994 provides that "the Omnibus Election Code shall govern the
elections of the Sangguniang Kabataan." This means that the election of Sangguniang
Kabataan shall be governed by the following provisions of the OEC:​ chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 252. Election contest for barangay offices. — A sworn petition contesting the
election of a barangay officer shall be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan
trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been
voted for the same office, within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the
election. The trial court shall decide the election protest within fifteen days after the
filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court may be appealed
within ten days from receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved party to the regional
trial court which shall decide the case within thirty days from its submission, and whose
decisions shall be final.

SECTION 253. Petition for quo warranto. — Any voter contesting the election of any
Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition
for quo warranto with the Commission within ten days after the proclamation of the
results of the election.

It was pursuant to this provision of R.A. 7808 in relation to Arts. 252-253 of the OEC
that in its Resolution No. 2824, promulgated on February 6, 1996, the COMELEC
provided in Section 49 as follows:​jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Finality of Proclamation. — The proclamation of the winning candidates shall be final.

However, the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MeTC/MTC/MCTC) shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases,
whose decision shall be final. The Commission en banc in meritorious cases may
entertain a petition for review of the decision of the MeTC/MTC/MCTC in accordance
with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. An appeal bond of P2,000.00 shall be required,
which shall be refundable if the appeal is found meritorious." [​Emphasis supplied​].

Thus, any contest relating to the election of members of the Sangguniang Kabataan
(including the chairman) — whether pertaining to their eligibility or the manner of their
election — is cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs. Section 6 of COMELEC Resolution
No. 2824, which provides that:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"cases involving the eligibility or qualification of candidates [of SK] shall be decided by
the city/municipal Election officer (EO) whose decision shall be final."​ cralaw virtua1aw library

applies only to proceedings before the election. This is evident from the use of the word
"candidates" in Section 6 and the phrase "winning candidates" in Section 49. The
distinction is based on the principle that it is the proclamation which marks off the
jurisdiction of the courts from the jurisdiction of election officials. Before proclamation,
cases concerning eligibility of SK officers and members are cognizable by the Election
Officer or EO as he is called in Section 6. But after the election and proclamation, the
same cases become quo warranto cases cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs.

The case of Jose M. Mercado v. Board of Election Supervisors, 5 in which this Court
ruled that election protests involving SK elections are to be determined by the Board of
Election Supervisors was decided under the aegis of COMELEC Resolution No. 2499,
which took effect on August 27, 1992, Article V, Section 24 of which provides:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The said board [of election supervisors] shall have direct general supervision in the
conduct of elections of sangguniang kabataan in the barangay and shall act as final
arbiter in the resolution of all election protests."​ cralaw virtua1aw library

However, COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, which took effect on February 6, 1996 and
was passed pursuant to R.A. 7808, in relation to Arts. 252-253 of the OEC, has since
transferred the cognizance of such cases from the BES to the MTCs, MCTCs and MeTCs.
So that Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, now provides that:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

(MeTC/MTC/MCTC) shall have original jurisdiction over all election protest cases, whose
decision shall be final. . ."​
cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, the doctrine of Mercado is no longer controlling.

It is also argued that Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution applies only to election

protests, and does not include quo warranto suits. As already stated, quo warranto
suits are now cognizable by the MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs pursuant to Art. 253 of the
OEC and RA 7808. Section 49 of Resolution 2824 must be understood to cover both
election protests and quo warranto cases, otherwise, to limit it only to election protests
would leave parties in an SK election to file their quo warranto cases in the Regional
Trial Court because of the absence of a specific provision.

First, quo warranto proceedings involving elective barangay officials, 6 such as the
Barangay Chairman and seven [7] members, are cognizable by the MTC, MCTC or
MeTC. To contend that quo warranto proceedings involving an SK Chairman should be
brought in the Regional Trial Court would, in effect, make the SK Chairman, who is just
an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Barangay, more important than the Chairman
and elective members of the same Sangguniang Barangay.​ chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Second, if election protests involving SK officers are cognizable by the MTCs, there is no
reason why quo warranto proceedings involving the same officers should not be
cognizable by the same courts. If the objection to the election of an SK Chairman
involves a question both as to his eligibility for the office and of fraud in his election,
two petitions would have to be filed in different fora — one in the RTC (for the quo
warranto suit) and another one in the MTC (for the election protest). The same
objection to the splitting of jurisdiction which has led to a reform in our law of
procedure can thus be made to this interpretation.

Mindful of the jurisprudence aforecited, and after a careful study and examination of
the records on hand, we are therefore led to the conclusion that the Commission on
Elections correctly upheld the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa
City over private respondent’s petition for quo warranto in Civil Case No. SP 3255. The
following disquisition of respondent Commission on Elections is noteworthy:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We are in accord with the trial court’s interpretation that cases involving the eligibility
or qualification of candidates refer to those cases filed before the SK elections and do
not cover those that are filed after the election of SK candidates. The disqualification
case having been filed after the election and proclamation of the winning candidate, the
governing law therefore is second paragraph of Sec. 253 of the Omnibus Election Code
which confers upon the respondent court the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
disqualification case filed against Marquez. Corollarily, while Sec. 49 of Comelec
Resolution No. 2824 speaks of finality of the proclamation of the winning SK
candidates, it does not prevent the herein respondent court from exercising original
jurisdiction in the event an election protest is filed which in our opinion includes matters
which could be raised in a quo warranto proceedings against a proclaimed SK
candidate.

Emphatically, the contention of herein petitioner that public respondent acted with
grave abuse of discretion when he assumed jurisdiction over the disqualification
proceedings has no legal and factual basis considering that the election protest which,
admittedly, is in the nature of a disqualification proceeding sought to be dismissed, was
filed after the SK election, within the reglementary period of ten (10) days after
proclamation of the results of the election, and duly filed by virtue of the inaction of the
election officer of Muntinlupa.

On the assertion that Sec. 253 of the Omnibus Election Code is not applicable on the
ground that the same applies only to barangay elective officials, we hold that such
contention is off-tangent considering that an SK Chairman is considered a barangay
official under Sec. 387 (a) of the Omnibus Election Code (sic) which provides:​ jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 387. Chief Officials and Offices. — (a) There shall be in each barangay a
punong barangay, seven (7) sangguniang barangay members, the sangguniang
kabataan chairman, a barangay secretary, and a barangay treasurer."​ cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Resolution of the
COMELEC in SPR No. 15-96 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.​ chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., ​C.J.,​ Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, ​JJ.,​ concur.

Pardo, ​J.​, took no part, being a former Comelec Chairman.