TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate disqualified from holding public office due to a final administrative decision cannot run for or hold office, even if they are re-elected. The Court emphasized that if a public official is validly removed from office before an election, that official remains disqualified, and any votes cast in their favor are not considered valid. This decision clarifies that administrative penalties leading to disqualification have immediate electoral consequences, reinforcing the importance of resolving administrative cases before elections.

When Refusal to Receive Judgment Backfires: The Case of the Disqualified Mayor

This case revolves around Renato U. Reyes, the former mayor of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, who faced administrative charges leading to his removal from office. After the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) found him guilty, Reyes contested the decision but ultimately failed to prevent its finality. Subsequently, he ran for re-election, despite being disqualified under the Local Government Code. The central legal question is whether Reyes’s disqualification was valid and what the electoral consequences were, given his re-election despite the administrative sanctions.

The core of the dispute lies in whether the decision removing Reyes from office was indeed final and executory before the election. Reyes argued that he had not been properly served with the decision, thus it was not final. The Supreme Court, however, found that Reyes and his counsel deliberately avoided receiving the decision. They established that attempts to serve the decision personally and by registered mail were thwarted by Reyes’s refusal. The Court referenced Rule 13, §§ 3 and 7 of the Rules of Court, which detail how service is completed, including constructive delivery when a party avoids service.

“If a judgment or decision is not delivered to a party for reasons attributable to him, service is deemed completed and the judgment or decision will be considered validly served as long as it can be shown that the attempt to deliver it to him would be valid were it not for his or his counsel’s refusal to receive it.”

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the purpose of service, which is to ensure a party is informed to protect their interests. Prudence dictated that Reyes should have received the decision and appealed it, but he did not. Therefore, the decision became final 30 days after the initial service attempt, well before the election. The court also addressed the argument that the pending certiorari case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) suspended the administrative decision. They clarified that a certiorari action does not automatically halt the underlying case unless a restraining order or preliminary injunction is issued, which did not occur in this instance.

Reyes invoked the doctrine of condonation, arguing that his re-election absolved him of prior misconduct, citing Aguinaldo v. COMELEC. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that in Aguinaldo, the term of office during which the misconduct occurred had expired before a final decision was reached. Here, the decision became final before the election, and importantly, § 40 (b) of the Local Government Code, which disqualifies individuals removed from office due to administrative cases, was applicable. The Court stated that this provision could not be applied retroactively in Aguinaldo, but it applied in Reyes’s case because his removal occurred after the law took effect.

Julius O. Garcia, the candidate with the second-highest number of votes, sought to be proclaimed the winner, arguing that Reyes’s votes should be considered stray. The Court rejected this argument, citing established jurisprudence that a second-place candidate cannot be declared the winner when the first-place candidate is disqualified. The votes cast for Reyes were presumed valid at the time they were cast and could not retroactively be invalidated. The Court also dismissed Garcia’s contention that the COMELEC should have decided the case before the election, stating that COMELEC can continue disqualification proceedings even after the election under R.A. No. 6646, § 6.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the consequences of attempting to circumvent them. The ruling reinforces that a final administrative decision has immediate effects on an individual’s eligibility for public office, ensuring that electoral processes are not undermined by unresolved legal issues.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Renato U. Reyes vs. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 120905, March 7, 1996