SUNGA V COMELEC

288 SCRA 76

FACTS: Petitioner Manuel C. Sunga was one of the candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Iguig,
Province of Cagayan, in the 8 May 1995 elections. Private respondent Ferdinand B. Trinidad, then incumbent mayor, was
a candidate for re-election in the same municipality.

Sunga filed with the COMELEC a complaint on 22 April 1995. The case came to the attention of this Commission
on 26 April 1995 in a form of letter from petitioner accusing respondent of utilizing government properties in his campaign
and praying for the latter's immediate disqualification. Another letter dated 7 May 1995 and addressed to the COMELEC
Regional Director of Region II (without paying the docket fee), reiterated petitioner's prayer while alleging that respondent
and his men committed acts of terrorism and violated the gun ban. Finally, on 11 May 1995, an Amended Petition was
filed with the Clerk of Court of the Commission containing substantially the same allegations as the previous letters but
supported by affidavits and other documentary evidence.

Trinidad, on the other hand, opted not to submit any evidence at all. Meanwhile, the election results showed that
Trinidad garnered the highest number of votes, while Sunga trailed second. On 10 May 1995 Sunga moved for the
suspension of the proclamation of Trinidad. However, notwithstanding the motion, Trinidad was proclaimed the elected
mayor, prompting Sunga to file another motion to suspend the effects of the proclamation. Both motions were not acted
upon by the COMELEC 2nd Division and thereafter dismissed the case.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the disqualification case.
Whether or not Sunga should be proclaimed as the Mayor.

HELD: YES, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the disqualification case. The Amended
Petition retroacted to such earlier dates of the letter of complaint, an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies
facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by
the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the original complaint.

Before final judgment – If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election the Court or Commission shall
continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor,
may, during the pendency thereof, order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of
guilt is strong. (Sec. 6, RA 6646)

A candidate guilty of election offenses would be undeservedly rewarded, instead of punished, by the dismissal of
the disqualification case against him simply because the investigating body was unable, for any reason caused upon it, to
determine before the election if the offenses were indeed committed by the candidate sought to be disqualified. All that
the erring aspirant would need to do is to employ delaying tactics so that the disqualification case based on the
commission of election offenses would not be decided before the election. This scenario is productive of more fraud which
certainly is not the main intent and purpose of the law.

The purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving,
or to prosecute him for violation of election laws. The fact that a candidate has been proclaimed and had assumed the
position to which he was elected does not divest the COMELEC of authority and jurisdiction to continue the hearing and
eventually decide the disqualification. The COMELEC should not dismiss the case simply because the respondent has
been proclaimed.

(Also, the fact that no docket fee was initially paid is not fatal. The Procedural defect as cured by the subsequent
payment of the docket fee.)

NO, Sunga should not be proclaimed as the Mayor notwithstanding the fact that the disqualification case may
proceed. The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law
then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes to be
declared elected. If the winner is ineligible, the candidate who got the highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed
elected as he did not get the majority or plurality of the votes (Note that Trinidad was not yet declared disqualified before
election).

As provided in Sec. 44, RA No. 7160 and echoed in Art. 83 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the
Local Government Code of 1991, the language of the law is clear, explicit and unequivocal, accordingly, in the event that
Trinidad is adjudged to be disqualified, a permanent vacancy will be created for failure of the elected mayor to qualify for
the said office. In such eventuality, the duly elected vice-mayor shall succeed as provided by law.