MEMO TO : A

MEMO FR : Atty. X

Atty. Y

DATE : 21 October 2019

RE : PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO

I. FACTS

A ran as City Councilor in Mighty City. Election results show that he ranked 11th
in the race. The Sangguniang Bayan of Mighty only has 10 seats.

Four (4) out of the ten (10) councilors who won in the election namely B,C, D and
E, as per the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, were found liable for
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest. The case was
docketed as OMB-L-A-12-1134, dated 21 December 2017 and approved on 13
April 2018. The decision meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE
with accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
benefits, perpetual disqualification to re-enter government service, and bar from
taking civil service examinations.

Client A, within the ten (10) day reglementary period provided under the law,
duly filed a Petition for Quo Warranto under Article 253 of the Omnibus Election
Code citing the ground of ineligibility.

Respondents, in their Answer, contend that the Petition cannot prosper on the
basis that OMB decision has not yet attained finality in view of the filing of a
Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals and a pending Motion for
Reconsideration.

II. ISSUE

Whether or not the Petition for Quo Warranto may prosper.

III. DISCUSSION

YES, the Petition for Quo Warranto may prosper in the case at hand.

 There is proper legal basis to uphold the Petition for Quo Warranto filed
by Petitioner.

Our ground for the Petition for Quo Warranto is based on eligibility. In the case of
FERNANDO GONZALEZ VS COMELEC, ET.AL, G.R. NO. 192856, MARCH 8,
2011, the Supreme Court held that “a petition for quo warranto under Section 253
may be brought on the basis of two grounds - (1) ineligibility or (2) disloyalty to
the Republic of the Philippines, and must be initiated within ten days after the
proclamation of the election results. Under Section 253, a candidate is ineligible
if he is disqualified to be elected to office, and he is disqualified if he lacks
any of the qualifications for elective office.”

Client A contests that Respondents are ineligible to hold and assume their
positions as city councilor as they were meted out the penalty of dismissal from
service with the accessory penalty of cancellation of eligibility from public
service by virtue of the Ombudsman decision finding them liable for Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest. As a ground for
disqualification, Section 40 of the Local Government Code was cited by client A
as follows:

SECTION 40. Disqualications. – The following persons are disqualified from

running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving

moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or
more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;
(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative
case;
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic;
(d) Those with dual citizenship;
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or
abroad;
(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have
acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the
same right after the effectivity of this Code; and
(g) The insane or feeble-minded.

The disqualification of Respondents is based on Section 40(b) which directed that

a person is disqualified from running for any elective local position if s/he is
removed from office as a result of an administrative case. There is no
requirement of finality of the said administrative case as seen on the provision
of Section 40, Local Government Code.

 There is no basis as to the contention of finality by the Respondents.

The Respondents argued in their answer that the basis for the quo warranto case
against them must be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 68 and
Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code. This is, however, misleading.

Sections 68 and 12 cannot apply because those provisions pertain to actions

initiated after the last day of the filing of the COCs but not later than the
proclamation. Therefore, it does not find any application in the instant quo
warranto case.

Furthermore, the Respondents merely allege the existence of the appeal as well
as the timely filing of the pleadings to bar the decision from being final and
executory. Absent any convincing evidence to support such allegation, their
arguments on the supposed non-finality of the decision must fail.
  The COMELEC must respect the implementation of the Ombudsman
decision done by DILG as this touches upon the issue on the
qualification of the Respondents to hold the position of Councilors.

In the case of PANADERO VS COMELEC, G.R. NO. 215548, APRIL 05, 2016, the
Supreme Court En Banc recognized the DILG’s function to execute Ombudsman
decisions as a matter of course pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman
Rules of Procedure, which provides:

Sec. 7. Finality and execution of decision. - x x x.

xxxx

A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases

shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the
Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced
and properly implemented. Xxxxx

The proclamation of the Respondents does not vest them eligibility to hold
office as this is determined by their possession of the qualifications outlined
by law and the absence of any grounds under Section 40 of the Local
Government Code.

In stark contrast to this case, considering that there already has a ruling on the
dismissal from public service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from
re-employment in the government service by the Ombudsman, the COMELEC
shall recognize such decision in holding the Respondents disqualified to hold
public office, including the position for which they were elected in Mighty City.

 The COMELEC cannot suppress proper representation of the people

pending alleged appeal of the case.

Pending the resolution of the case at hand, the people of Mighty City is deprived
of proper representation. With four councilors not being able to assume office
and discharge the functions for which they were elected, the COMELEC is bound
to recognize this deficiency and respect the declaration of the Respondents’
disqualification to hold their respective seats in the Sangguniang Bayan.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the instant case should be pursued by client A.

Based on the above discussion, we are of the opinion that COMELEC shall
declare the Respondents disqualified to hold office and subsequently annul the
proclamation and convene a special board of canvassers to declare client A as the
bona fide winner and entitled to one of the seats in the Sangguniang Bayan.