4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v.

VARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

July 1958 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1958 > July 1958 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS

104 Phil 268:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12596. July 31, 1958.]

JOSE L. GUEVARA, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Respondent.

Enrique M. Fernando for Petitioner.

Dominador D. Dayot for Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; JURISDICTION AND POWER TO PUNISH FOR

CONTEMPT. — Under section 2, Article X of the Constitution and section 5 of the
Revised Election Code, the Commission on Elections not only has the duty to
enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the power
to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection
with the elections. And as an incident of this power, it may also punish for
contempt in those cases provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the
same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein. In this sense, the
Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of justice within the
meaning of the Constitution (section 13, Art. VIII) for it is merely an independent
administrative body (The Nacionalista Party v. Vera, 85 Phil., 126), may however
exercise quasi-judicial functions in so far as controversies that by express
provision of the law come under its jurisdiction. As to what questions may come
within this category, neither the Constitution nor the Revised Election Code
specifies. The former merely provides that it shall come under its jurisdiction,

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 1/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

saving those involving the right to vote, all administrative questions affecting
elections, including the determination of the number and location of polling places,
and the appointment of election inspectors and other election officials, while the
latter is silent as to what questions may be brought before it for determination.
But it is clear that, to come under its jurisdiction, the questions should be
controversial in nature and must refer to the enforcement and administration of all
laws relative to the conduct of elections.

2. ID.; ID.; ON MINISTERIAL ACT; NEWSPAPER COMMENTS ON REQUISITION FOR

BALLOT BOXES. — The requisitioning and preparation of the necessary ballot
boxes to be used in the elections is an imperative ministerial duty of the
Commission on Elections performed in its administrative capacity in relation to the
conduct of election ordained by our Constitution. In proceeding on this matter, it
only dicharges a ministerial duty; it does not exercise any judicial functions. Such
being the case, it can not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated
in the law, for such power is inherently Judicial in nature.

3. ID.; ID.; POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS INHERENTLY JUDICIAL;

EXEMPTION. — "The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its
existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to
the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of Courts, and, consequently,
in the administration of justice" (Slade Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil., 271;
U. S. v. Loo Koe, 36 Phil., 867; In re Sotto 46 Off. Gaz., 2570; In re Kelly, 35 Phil,
944). The exercise of this power has always been regarded as a necessary incident
and attribute of courts (Slade Perkins v. Director of Prisons, Ibid.) Its exercise by
administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective the power to
elicit testimony (People v. Swena, 296 p. 271), and the exercise of that power by
an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been held
invalid (Langenberg v. Decker, 31 N. E. 190; In re Sims, 37 Phil., 135; Roberts v.
Hacney, 58 S.W. 180).

DECISION

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Petitioner was ordered by the Commissioner on Elections to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt for having published in the Sunday Times issue of June 2,
1957 an article entitled "Ballot Boxes Contract Hit", which tended to interfere with and
influence the Commission on Elections and its members in the adjudication of a
controversy then pending investigation and determination before said body "arising
from the third petition for reconsideration of May 20, 1957 and the supplementary
petition thereof of June 1, 1957 filed by Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc., praying for
reconsideration of the resolutions of the Commission of May 4 and 13, 1957, awarding
the contracts for the manufacture and supply of 34,000 ballot boxes to the National
Shipyards & Steel Corporation and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. and the respective
answers of the latter two corporations to said petitions; and which article likewise
tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the exclusive constitutional
function of this Commission and its Chairman Domingo Imperial and Member Sixto
Brillantes in the administration of all the laws relative to the conduct of elections." cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner, answering the summons issued to him by the Commission, appeared and
filed a motion to quash on the following grounds: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a) The Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the publication of the
alleged contemptuous article, as neither in the Constitution nor in statutes is the
Commission granted a power to so punish the same, for should Section 5 of Republic
Act No. 180, vesting the Commission with ‘power to punish contempts provided for in

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 2/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the same procedure and with the same penalties
provided therein,’ be applied to the case at hand, said provision would be
unconstitutional.

"b) Assuming that the Commission’s power to punish contempt exists, the same cannot
be applied to the instant case, where the Commission is exercising a purely
administrative function of purchasing ballot boxes.

"c) Assuming that the Commission’s power to punish contempt exists, said power
cannot apply to the present case because the matter of purchasing the ballot boxes was
already a closed case when the article in question was published.

"d) Assuming that controversy contemplated by the law was still pending, the article in
question was a fair report because it could be assumed that the news report of the
respondent was based on the motion for reconsideration filed by the Acme Steel where
there was an allegation of fraud, etc." cralaw virtua1aw library

The Commission, after hearing, denied the motion to quash but granted petitioner a
period of fifteen (15) days within which to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court in
view of the issue raised which assails the jurisdiction of the Commission to investigate
and punish petitioner for contempt in connection with the alleged publication. Hence the
present petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction.

The facts which gave rise to the present contemptuous incident are: The Commission on
Elections, on May 4, 1957, after proper negotiations, awarded to the National Shipyards
& Steel Corporation (NASSCO), the Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ACME), and the Asiatic
Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ASIATIC), the contracts to manufacture and supply the Commission
12,000, 11,000 and 11,000 ballot boxes at P17.64, P14.00 and P17.00 each,
respectively. On May 8, 1957, both the NASSCO and the ASIATIC signed with the
Commission on Elections the corresponding contracts thereon. On May 13, 1957, the
Commission cancelled the award to the ACME for failure of the latter to sign the contract
within the designated time and awarded to the NASSCO and the ASIATIC, one-half
each, the 11,000 ballot boxes originally alloted to the ACME. The corresponding
contracts thereon were signed on May 16, 1957.

Then followed a series of petitions filed by the ACME for the reconsideration of the
resolution of the Commission of May 13, 1957. The first of these petitions was filed on
May 14, 1957 which, after hearing, was denied by the Commission in its resolution of
May 16, 1957. The second petition was filed on May 16, 1957 and was denied on May
17, 1957. The third petition was filed on May 20, 1957, and because of the seriousness
of the grounds alleged therein for the annulment of its previous resolutions, the
Commission resolved to conduct a formal investigation on the matter ordering the
NASSCO and the ASIATIC to file their respective answers. Thereafter, after these
corporations had filed their answers, the Commission held a formal hearing thereon on
May 24, 1957. On May 28, 1957, the ACME filed a memorandum on the points adduced
during the hearing, and on June 4, 1957, the Commission issued its resolution denying
the third motion for reconsideration. The article signed by petitioner was published in
the June 2, 1957 issue of the Sunday Times, a newspaper of nationwide circulation.

The question to be determined is whether the Commission on Elections has the power
and jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings against petitioner with a view to
imposing upon him the necessary disciplinary penalty in connection with the publication
of an article in the Sunday Times issue of June 2, 1957 which, according to the charge,
tended to interfere with and influence said Commission in the adjudication of a
controversy then pending determination and to degrade and undermine the function of
the Commission and its members in the administration of all laws relative to the conduct
of elections.

The Commission on Elections is an independent administrative body which was

established by our Constitution to take charge of the enforcement of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections and devise means and methods that will insure the
accomplishment of free, orderly, and honest elections (Sumulong v. Commission on

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 3/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

Elections, 73 Phil., 288; Nacionalista Party v. The Solicitor General, 85 Phil., 101; 47 Off.
Gaz. 2356). Its powers are defined in the Constitution. It provides that it "shall have
exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the
conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon
it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the right to vote, all administrative
questions, affecting elections, including the determination of the number and location of
polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials"
(Section 2, Article X). The Revised Election Code supplements what other powers may
be exercised by said Commission. Among these powers are those embodied in Section 5
thereof which, for ready reference, we quote: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 5. Powers of Commission. — The Commission on Elections or any of the members

thereof shall have the power to summon the parties to a controversy pending before it,
issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum and otherwise take testimony in any
investigation or hearing pending before it, and delegate such power to any officer. Any
controversy submitted to the Commission on Elections shall be tried, heard and decided
by it within fifteen days counted from the time the corresponding petition giving rise to
said controversy is filed. The Commission or any of the members thereof shall have the
power to punish contempts provided for in rule sixty-four of the Rules of Court, under
the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein.

"Any violation of any final and executory decision, order or ruling of the Commission
shall constitute contempt of the Commission.

"Any decision, order or ruling of the Commission on Elections may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court by writ of certiorari in accordance with the Rules of Court or with such
rules as may be promulgated by the Supreme Court." cralaw virtua1aw library

It would therefore appear that the Commission on Elections not only has the duty to
enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the power to try,
hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection with the
elections. And as an incident of this power, it may also punish for contempt in those
cases provided for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the same procedure and with
the same penalties provided therein. In this sense, the Commission, although it cannot
be classified as a court of justice within the meaning of the Constitution (Section 13,
Article VIII), for it is merely an independent administrative body (The Nacionalista Party
v. Vera, 85 Phil., 126; 47 Off. Gaz. 2375), may however exercise quasi-judicial functions
in so far as controversies that by express provision of the law come under its
jurisdiction. As to what questions may come within this category, neither the
Constitution nor the Revised Election Code specifies. The former merely provides that it
shall come under its jurisdiction, saving those involving the right to vote, all
administrative questions affecting elections, including the determination of the number
and location of polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and other
election officials, while the latter is silent as to what questions may be brought before it
for determination. But it is clear that, to come under its jurisdiction, the questions
should be controversial in nature and must refer to the enforcement and administration
of all laws relative to the conduct of election. The difficulty lies in drawing the
demarcation line between a duty which inherently is administrative in character and a
function which is justiciable and which would therefore call for judicial action by the
Commission. But this much depends upon the factors that may intervene when a
controversy should arise.

Thus, it has been held that the Commission has no power to annul an election which
might not have been free, orderly and honest for such matter devolves upon other
agencies of the Government (Nacionalista Party v. Commission on Elections, 85 Phil.,
148; 47 Off. Gaz. 2851); neither does it have the power to decide the validity or
invalidity of votes cast in an election for such devolves upon the courts or the electoral
tribunals (Ibid.); it does not also have the power to order a recounting of the votes
before the proclamation of election even if there are discrepancies in the election
returns for it is a function of our courts of justice (Ramos v. Commission on Elections,
80 Phil., 722); nor does it have the power to order the correction of a certificate of
canvass after a candidate had been proclaimed and assumed office (De Leon v.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 4/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

Imperial, 94 Phil., 680); and only very recently this Court has held that the Commission
has no power to reject a certificate of candidacy except only when its purpose is to
create confusion in the minds of the electors (Abcede v. Imperial, 103 Phil., 136).

On the other hand, it has been held that the Commission has the power to annul an
illegal registry list of voters (Feliciano, Et. Al. v. Lugay, Et Al., 93 Phil., 744; 49 Off. Gaz.
3863); to annul an election canvass made by a municipal board of canvassers (Mintu v.
Enage, Et Al., G. R. No. L-1834); and to investigate and act on the illegality of a canvass
of election made by a municipal board of canvassers (Ramos v. Commission on
Elections, 80 Phil., 722). And as to what are the ministerial duties which the
Commission on Elections must perform in connection with the conduct of elections, the
following resume made by the Commission itself in a controversy which was submitted
to it for determination is very enlightening: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections,
the first duty of the Commission is to set in motion all the multifarious preparatory
processes ranging from the purchase of election supplies, printing of election forms and
ballots, appointments of members of the boards of inspectors, establishment of
precincts and designation of polling places to the preparation of the registry lists of
voters, so as to put in readiness on election day the election machinery in order that the
people who are legally qualified to exercise the right of suffrage may be able to cast
their votes to express their sovereign will. It is incumbent upon the Commission to see
that all these preparatory acts will insure free, orderly and honest elections. All
provisions of the Revised Election Code contain regulations relative to these processes
preparatory for election day. It is incumbent upon the Commission on Elections to see
that all these preparatory acts are carried out freely, honestly and in an orderly manner.
It is essential that the Commission or its authorized representatives, in establishing
precincts or designating polling places, must act freely, honestly and in an orderly
manner. It is also essential that the printing of election forms and the purchase of
election supplies and their distribution are done freely, honestly and in an orderly
manner. It is further essential that the political parties or their duly authorized
representatives who are entitled to be represented in the boards of inspectors must
have the freedom to choose the person who will represent them in each precinct
throughout the country. It is further essential that once organized, the boards of
inspectors shall be given all the opportunity to be able to perform their duties in
accordance with law freely, honestly and in an orderly manner, individually and as a
whole. In other words, it is the duty of the Commission to see that the boards of
inspectors, in all their sessions, are placed in an atmosphere whereby they can fulfill
their duties without any pressure, influence and interference from any private person or
public official. All these preparatory steps are administrative in nature and all questions
arising therefrom are within the exclusive powers of the Commission to resolve. All
irregularities, anomalies and misconduct committed by any election official in these
preparatory steps are within the exclusive power of the Commission to correct. Any
erring official must respond to the Commission for investigation. Of these preparatory
acts, the preparation of the permanent list of voters is the matter involved in this case,
which to our mind is completely an administrative matter." (Decision of the Commission
on Elections, October 28, 1951, In Re Petition of Angel Genuino v. Prudente, Et Al., Case
No. 196) 1

Considering that the paramount administrative duty of the Commission is to set in

motion all the multifarious preparatory processes ranging from the purchase of election
supplies, printing of election forms and ballots, appointments of members of the board
of inspectors, establishment of precincts and designation of polling places to the
preparation of registry lists of voters, so as to put in readiness on election day the
election machinery, it may also be reasonably said that the requisitioning and
preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to be used in the elections is by the same
token an imperative ministerial duty which the Commission is bound to perform if the
elections are to be held. Such is the incident which gave rise to the contempt case
before us. It stems from the ministerial act of the Commission in requisitioning for the
necessary ballot boxes in connection with the last elections and in so proceeding it
provoked a dispute between several dealers who offered to do the job.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 5/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy

between several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty which the
Commission has performed in its administrative capacity in relation to the conduct of
elections ordained by our Constitution. In proceeding on this matter, it only discharged a
ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it could
not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law, for such power
is inherently judicial in nature. As this Court has aptly said: "The power to punish for
contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order
in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of
courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice" (Slade Perkins v. Director of
Prisons, 58 Phil., 271; U. S. v. Loo Hoe, 36 Phil., 867; In Re Sotto, 46 Off. Gaz. 2570; In
Re Kelly, 35 Phil., 944). The exercise of this power has always been regarded as a
necessary incident and attribute of courts (Slade Perkins v. Director of Prisons, Ibid.) .
Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably limited to making effective the
power to elicit testimony (People v. Swena, 296 P., 271). And the exercise of that power
by an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been held
invalid (Langenberg v. Decker, 31 N.E. 190; In Re Sims 37 P., 135; Roberts v. Hacney,
58 S.W., 810). We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the Commission on
Elections has no power nor authority to submit petitioner to contempt proceedings if its
purpose is to discipline him because of the publication of the article mentioned in the
charge under consideration.

Wherefore, petition is granted. Respondent Commission is hereby enjoined from

proceeding with the contempt case set forth in its resolution of June 20, 1957, without
pronouncement as to costs.

The preliminary injunction issued by this Court is made permanent.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ.,
concur.

Endnotes:

1. This case has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the certiorari case, G.
R. No. L-5222, Prudente, Et. Al. v. Genuino, Et Al., Nov. 6. 1951.

Back to Home | Back to Main

Search

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 6/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…
ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

Review

ChanRobles CPA Review

Online

ChanRobles Special Lecture

Series

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 7/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 8/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 9/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

July-1958 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. L-11485 July 11,

1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
GREGORIO BACSA

104 Phil 136

G.R. No. L-11567 July 17,

1958 - ARSENIO FERRERIA, ET
AL. v. MANUELA IBARRA VDA.
DE GONZALES, ET AL.

104 Phil 143

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 10/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…
G.R. No. L-11107 July 25,
1958 - LUIS SARABIA, ET AL. v.
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET
AL.

104 Phil 151

G.R. No. L-11769 July 25,

1958 - CONRADO POTENCIANO
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

104 Phil 156

G.R. No. L-11940 July 25,

1958 - SEVERINO DAGDAG, JR.,
ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.

104 Phil 162

G.R. No. L-12809 July 25,

1958 - SALVADOR LAURILLA v.
REMEDIOS T. UICHANGCO, ET
AL.

104 Phil 171

G.R. No. L-9124 July 28,

1958 - BERNARDO HEBRON v.
EULALIO D. REYES

104 Phil 175

G.R. No. L-11752 July 30,

1958 - JOSE GATTOC v. HON.
JUAN SARENAS

104 Phil 221

G.R. No. L-6817 July 31,

1958 - ESTEFANIA R. VDA. DE
PIROVANO v. DE LA RAMA
STEAMSHIP CO. INC.

104 Phil 228

G.R. No. L-9435 July 31,

1958 - FREDERICK L.
WORCESTER v. RAMON
LORENZANA

104 Phil 234

G.R. No. L-10152 July 31,

1958 - MANILA RAILROAD
COMPANY v. PANGASINAN
TRANSPORTATION CO. INC.

104 Phil 238

G.R. No. L-11251 July 31,

1958 - MAYON TRADING CO.,
INC. v. CO BUN KIM

104 Phil 242

G.R. No. L-11920 July 31,

1958 - JUAN V. AGUSTIN v.
PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

104 Phil 250

G.R. No. L-11986 July 31,

1958 - BERNARDO MANALANG,
ET AL. v. ELVIRA TUASON DE
RICKARDS, ET AL.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 11/12
4/24/2021 G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS<br /><br />104 Phil 268 : July 1958 - Phili…

104 Phil 254

G.R. No. L-12337 July 31,

1958 - JESUS AGUIRRE v.
HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

104 Phil 259

G.R. No. L-12379 July 31,

1958 - NUGUID & NUGUID v.
VENANCIO CARIÑO

104 Phil 263

G.R. No. L-12596 July 31,

1958 - JOSE L. GUEVARA v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

104 Phil 268

G.R. No. L-13242 July 31,

1958 - LEON REFORMA v.
MACARIO DE LUNA

104 Phil 278

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958julydecisions.php?id=257 12/12