Mendoza vs. Laxina [G.R. No. 146875.
July 14, 2003] Facts:
Public Officers Case No. 8
On May 27, 1997, respondent took his oath and thereafter assumed office as the duly proclaimed and elected barangay captain of Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City, in the 1997 Barangay Elections. Meanwhile, Roque Fermo, his rival candidate, filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40. On January 18, 1999, Fermo was declared as the winner in the Barangay Elections. Respondent filed a notice of appeal with the COMELEC while Fermo filed a motion for execution pending appeal. On January 20, 1999, an order was issued by the trial court granting the motion for execution pending appeal. Hence, respondent vacated the position and relinquished the same to Fermo. Thereafter, respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC questioning the January 20, 1999 order of the trial court. On September 16, 1999, the COMELEC issued a resolution annulling the order which granted the execution of the decision pending appeal on the ground that there existed no good reasons to justify execution. The dispositive portion thereof reads: ...the January 20, 1999 Order of the Court a quo is hereby ANNULLED. Private respondent ROQUE FERMO is hereby ORDERED to CEASE and DESIST from further performing the functions of Punong Barangay of Barangay Batasan Hills, District II, Quezon City and to relinquish the same to Petitioner MANUEL LAXINA, SR, pending final resolution of appeal. On October 27, 1999, the COMELEC issued a writ of execution directing Fermo to vacate the office of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Batasan Hills. On October 28, 1999, Fermo was served a copy of the writ of execution but refused to acknowledge receipt thereof. He also refused to vacate the premises of the barangay hall of Batasan Hills. This did not, however, prevent respondent and his staff from discharging their functions and from holding office at the SK-Hall of Batasan Hills. On the same date, respondent appointed Godofredo L. Ramos as Barangay Secretary and on November 8, 1999, he appointed Rodel G. Liquido as Barangay Treasurer. Issue: Is the taking of an oath of office anew by a duly proclaimed but subsequently unseated local elective official a condition sine qua non to the validity of his re-assumption in office where the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) orders the relinquishment of the contested position? Ruling: In the case at bar, respondent was proclaimed as the winner in the 1997 Barangay Elections in Batasan Hills, Quezon City; he took his oath on May 27, 1997 and thereafter assumed office. He is therefore vested with all the rights to discharge the functions of his office. Although in the interim, he was unseated by virtue of a decision in an election protest decided against him, the execution of said decision was annulled by the COMELEC in its September 16, 1999 Resolution which, incidentally, was sustained by this Court on March 13, 2000, in Fermo v. Commission on Elections. It was held therein that “[w]hen the COMELEC nullified the writ of execution pending appeal in favor of FERMO, the decision of the MTC proclaiming FERMO as the winner of the election was stayed and the ‘status quo’ or the last actual peaceful uncontested situation preceding the controversy was restored…”The status quo referred
therefore. the date Roque Fermo turned over to respondent the assets and properties of Barangay Batasan Hills. it was Fermo’s defiance of the writ that prevented respondent from assuming office at the barangay hall. and in granting them emoluments and renumerations for the period served. 1999. It follows that all lawful acts of the latter arising from his re-assumption in office on October 28. 1999. For purposes of determining the continuity and effectivity of the rights arising from respondent’s proclamation and oath taken on May 27. 1999. Quezon City was not a condition sine qua non to the validity of his reassumption in office and to the exercise of the functions thereof. 1999 that the turn-over to respondent of the assets and properties of the barangay was effected. the date of service of the writ of execution to Roque Fermo and the date respondent actually commenced to discharge the functions of the office. Quezon City? The records show that the COMELEC served on October 28. the taking anew of his oath of office as Barangay Captain of Batasan Hills. His supporters prevented respondent from occupying the barangay hall. it is worthy to note that although the physical possession of the Office of the Barangay Captain was not immediately relinquished by Fermo to respondent. 1999. or from November 17. it is as if the said writ of execution pending appeal was not issued and he was not ousted from office. 1997. 1999 was a mere formality considering that his oath taken on May 27. which was granted on November 12. To reckon. 1997 operated as a full investiture on him of the rights of the office. Ramos and Rodel G. It was only on November 17. It is essential to the effective administration of justice that the processes of the courts and quasi-judicial bodies be obeyed. Undoubtedly. the latter exercised the powers and functions thereof at the SK-Hall of Batasan Hills. no grave misconduct was committed by him in appointing Godofredo L. Hence. Quezon City starting October 28. the effectivity of respondent’s assumption in office on November 17. . 1999 a writ of execution ordering Fermo to desist from performing the function of the Office of Barangay Captain. but the latter refused to comply therewith.to the stage when respondent was occupying the office of Barangay Captain and discharging its functions. Having thus ruled out the necessity of respondent’s taking anew of the oath of office. would be to sanction dilatory maneuvers and to put a premium on disobedience of lawful orders which this Court will not countenance. Moreover. His re-assumption in office effectively enforced the decision of the COMELEC which reinstated him in office. Liquido as Barangay Secretary and Barangay Treasurer. as petitioners insist. Hence. respectively. 1999 are valid. The re-taking of his oath of office on November 16. the next question to be resolved is: when is respondent considered to have validly re-assumed office – from October 28. prompting the latter to move for the issuance of an alias wit of execution. 1999.