G.R. Nos.
179431-32 June 22, 2010
LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., as the second nominee of CITIZENS BATTLE AGAINST
CORRUPTION (CIBAC), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 180443
LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA,
CINCHONA C. GONZALES and ARMI JANE R. BORJE, Respondents.
CASE DIGEST
FACTS
1. CIBAC through its president Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva submitted a list of five
nominees for which its representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the
required number of votes. The list goes :
(1) Villanueva
(2) Lokin
(3) Cruz-Gonzales
(4) Tugna
(5) Galang
2. Prior to elections, CIBAC, through Villanueva, filed a Certificate of nomination,
substitution and amendment withdrawing the nominations of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang
and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje.
3. To confirm withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang and the
substitution of Borje, Villanueva sent a letter to COMELEC transmitting signed petitions
of more than 81% of the CIBAC members confirming the withdrawal and substitution.
4. CIBAC, supposedly through its counsel, filed a motion seeking the proclamation of
Lokin as its second nominee, Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales opposed the motion
5. Notwithstanding the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment filed by
Villanueva, COMELEC failed to act on the matter prompting Villanueva to file a petition
to confirm certification.
6. Then, COMELEC issued a resolution partially proclaiming those under Party-list system
to have won the May elections in which CIBAC was included and to defer proclamation
of nominees with pending disputes until final resolution.
7. COMELEC then issued another resolution proclaiming CIBAC to be entitled to another
seat, with its formal declaration, the Secretary General of CIBAC informed the Secretary
General of the House of Representatives of the promulgation of the resolution and
requested that Lokin be formaly sworn by speaker Venecia Jr. to enable him to assume
office. Secretary General of House of Representatives replied however that he cannot
grant his request because the COMELEC Law Director had notified him of the pendency
of the E.M no.07-054 (matter pertaining to the validity of withdrawal of the nominations
of Lokin, Tugna, and Galang).
8. The COMELEC then resolved the matter and approved the withdrawal of the
nominations of Atty. Luis Lokin, Tugna and Galang as second, third and fourth nominees
and substitution of Cruz-Gonzales as second nominee and Borje as third nominee for
CIBAC. The list goes :
(1) Villanueva
(2) Cruz-Gonzales
(3) Borje
9. As a result, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official second
nominee of CIBAC and took her oath of office as Party List Representative of CIBAC.
10. In G.R. No. 17931-32, Lokin seeks through mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC
to proclaim him as official second nominee.
In G.R. No. 180443, Lokin assails sec. 13 of Resolution 7804, and the resolution
approving the CIBAC’s withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. He
alleges that Sec. 13 of Resolution NO. 7804 expanded Section 8 of R.A 7941, the law
that COMELEC seeks to thereby implement.
11. CIBAC on its part, posist that Lokin is guilty of forum shopping for filing a mandamus
and a certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately seek to have him proclaimed as
second nominee.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Lokin is guilty of forum shopping
2. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in approving the withdrawal of the
nominees of CIBAC and allowing the amendment of the list of nominees of
CIBAC without any basis in fact or law and after the close of the polls, and in
ruling on matters that were intra-corporate in nature.
RULING:
1. Lokin is not guilty of forum shopping. The mere filing of several cases based
on the same incident does not necessarily constitute forum shopping. The test
is whether the several actions filed involve the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances. The actions must also raise identical causes
of action, subject matter, and issues. Elsewise stated, forum shopping exists
where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in
one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Applying the test for forum
shopping, the consecutive filing of the action for certiorari and the action for
mandamus did not violate the rule against forum shopping even if the actions
involved the same parties, because they were based on different causes of
action and the reliefs they sought were different.
2. The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government
in the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election, has neither the authority nor the license to expand,
extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the
COMELEC issues for that purpose should always accord with the law to be
implemented, and should not override, supplant, or modify the law. It is basic
that the IRRs should remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out.
Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the
Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the law’s
general provisions into effect. The law itself cannot be expanded by such
IRRs, because an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
Considering that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 – to the extent that it
allows the party-list organization to withdraw its nomination already
submitted to the COMELEC – was invalid, CIBAC’s withdrawal of its
nomination of Lokin and the others and its substitution of them with new
nominees were also invalid and ineffectual. It is clear enough that any
substitution of Lokin and the others could only be for any of the grounds
expressly stated in Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941. Resultantly, the COMELEC’s
approval of CIBAC’s petition of withdrawal of the nominations and its
recognition of CIBAC’s substitution, both through its assailed resolution,
should be struck down for lack of legal basis. Thereby, the COMELEC acted
without jurisdiction, having relied on the invalidly issued Section 13 of
Resolution No. 7804 to support its action.
