4/30/25, 3:20 PM [ G.R. No. 127318.

August 25, 1999 ]

371 Phil. 842

EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 127318. August 25, 1999 ]
FRANCIS KING L. MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. 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 vs. 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.

The COMELEC Resolution sets forth the relevant facts as follows:

"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, which protest was docketed as
Civil Case No. SP 3255. Private respondent (then protestant) impugned 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.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 1/6
4/30/25, 3:20 PM [ G.R. No. 127318. August 25, 1999 ]

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:

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:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 2/6
4/30/25, 3:20 PM [ G.R. No. 127318. August 25, 1999 ]

"Qualifications of Elective Members - An elective official of the SK must be:

(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."

On the other hand, Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code reads:

"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."

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:

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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:

"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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 3/6
4/30/25, 3:20 PM [ G.R. No. 127318. August 25, 1999 ]

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." [underscoring 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:

"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."

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 vs. 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:

"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."

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:

"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..."

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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 4/6
4/30/25, 3:20 PM [ G.R. No. 127318. August 25, 1999 ]

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.

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:

"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 assertation 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:

"Sec. 387. Chief Officials and Offices. - (a) There shall be in each barangay a

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 5/6
4/30/25, 3:20 PM [ G.R. No. 127318. August 25, 1999 ]

punong barangay, seven (7) sangguniang barangay members, the sangguniang

kabataan chairman, a barangay secretary, and a barangay treasurer."

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.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Pardo, J., no part, being a former Comelec Chairman.

[1] Annex "A," Petition; Rollo, pp. 231-37.

[2]Composed of Commissioners Bernardo P. Pardo (Chairman), Regalado E. Maambong,

Remedios S. Salazar-Fernando, Manolo B. Gorospe, Julio F. Desamito, Teresita D. L. Flores,
and Japal M. Guiani, (Members).

[3] COMELEC's Resolution, pp. 1-3; Annex "A", Petition, Rollo, pp. 231-33.

[4]Officially entitled as "In Re: Rules and Regulations Governing the May 06, 1996 Elections of
the Officials of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK), Per R.A. 7808;" Published in Manila Standard
on February 28, 1996.

[5] 243 SCRA 423 [G.R. No. 109713, April 6, 1995]; Penned by J. Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

[6] Section 387, RA 7160; otherwise known as "Local Government Code of 1991."

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: October 27, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search 6/6