LUIS

MALALUAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION JOSEPH EVANGELISTA, respondents. DECISION

ON

ELECTIONS

and

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Novel is the situation created by the decision of the Commission on Elections which declared the winner in an election contest and awarded damages, consisting of attorneys fees, actual expenses for xerox copies, unearned salary and other emoluments for the period, from March, 199 to !pril, 199", en masse denominated as actual damages, notwithstanding the fact that the electoral controversy had become moot and academic on account of the expiration of the term of office of the Municipal Mayor of #idapawan, North Cotabato$ %efore us is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary in&unction, see'ing the review of the decision en banc(1) of the Commission on Elections *C+ME,EC- denying the motion for reconsideration of the decision (.) of its /irst 0ivision,(1) which reversed the decision( ) of the 2egional 3rial Court(") in the election case(4) involving the herein parties$ 5hile the 2egional 3rial Court had found petitioner ,uis Malaluan to be the winner of the elections for the position of Municipal Mayor of #idapawan, North Cotabato, the C+ME,EC, on the contrary, found private respondent 6oseph Evangelista to be the rightful winner in said elections$ 7etitioner ,uis Malaluan and private respondent 6oseph Evangelista were both mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of #idapawan,North Cotabato, in the 8ynchroni9ed National and ,ocal Elections held on May 11, 199.$ 7rivate respondent 6oseph Evangelista was proclaimed by the Municipal %oard of Canvassers as the duly elected Mayor for having garnered 1:, 9; votes as against petitioners 9,<9. votes$ Evangelista was, thus, said to have a winning margin of <:4 votes$ %ut, on May .., 199., petitioner filed an election protest with the 2egional 3rial Court contesting 4 out of the total 1;1 precincts of the said municipality$ 3he trial court declared petitioner as the duly elected municipal mayor of #idapawan, North Cotabato with a plurality of 1" votes$ !cting without precedent, the court found private respondent liable not only for Malaluans protest expenses but also for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees$ +n /ebruary 1, 199 , private respondent appealed the trial court decision to the C+ME,EC$

6ust a day thereafter that is, on /ebruary , 199 , petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal$ 3he motion was granted by the trial court, in an order, dated March ;, 199 , after petitioner posted a bond in the amount of 7"::,:::$::$ %y virtue of said order, petitioner assumed the office of Municipa6 Mayor of #idapawan, North Cotabato, and exercised the powers and functions of said office$ 8uch exercise was not for long, though$ =n the herein assailed decision adverse to Malaluans continued governance of the Municipality of #idapawan, North Cotabato, the /irst 0ivision of the Commission on Elections *C+ME,EC- ordered Malaluan to vacate the office, said division having found and so declared private respondent to be the duly elected Municipal Mayor of said municipality$ 3he C+ME,EC en banc affirmed said decision$ Malaluan filed this petition before us on May 11, 199" as a conse>uence$ =t is significant to note that the term of office of the local officials elected in the May, 199. elections expired on 6une 1:, 199". 3his petition, thus, has become moot and academic insofar as it concerns petitioners right to the mayoralty seat in his municipality(<) because expiration of the term of office contested in the election protest has the effect of rendering the same moot and academic$(;) 5hen the appeal from a decision in an election case has already become moot, the case being an election protest involving the office of mayor the term of which had expired, the appeal is dismissible on that ground, unless the rendering of a decision on the merits would be of practical value$ (9) 3his rule we established in the case of ?orac vs. Magalona(1:) which we dismissed because it had been mooted by the expiration of the term of office of the Municipal Mayor of 8aravia, Negros +ccidental$ 3his was the ob&ect of contention between the parties therein$ 3he recent case of !tien9a vs. Commission on Elections, (11) however, s>uarely presented the situation that is the exception to that rule$ Comparing the scenarios in those two cases, we@explainedA
Second, petitioners citation of Yorac vs. Magalona as authority for his main

proposition is grossly inappropriate and misses the point in issue. The sole question in that case centered on an election protest involving the mayoralty post in Saravia, Negros Occidental in the general elections of !"", #hich #as rendered moot and academic $y the e%piration of the term of office in &ecem$er, !"! 't did not involve a monetary a#ard for damages and other e%penses incurred as a result of the election protest. 'n response to the petitioners contention that the issues presented $efore the court #ere novel and important and that the appeal should not $e dismissed, the (ourt held ) citing the same provision of the *ules of (ourt upon #hich petitioner staunchly places reliance ) that a decision on the merits in the case #ould have no practical value at all, and

forth#ith dismissed the case for $eing moot. That is not the case here. 'n contradistinction to Yorac, a decision on the merits in the case at $ench #ould clearly have the practical value of either sustaining the monetary a#ard for damages or relieving the private respondent from having to pay the amount thus a#arded.+(1.) =ndeed, this petition appears now to be moot and academic because the herein parties are contesting an elective post to which their right to the office no longer exists$ Bowever, the >uestion as to damages remains ripe for ad&udication$ 3he C+ME,EC found petitioner liable for attorneys fees, actual expenses for xerox copies, and unearned salary and other emoluments from March, 199 to !pril, 199", en mUssedenominated as actual damages, default in payment by petitioner of which shall result in the collection of said amount from the bond posted by petitioner on the occasion of the grant of his motion for execution pending appeal in the trial court$ 7etitioner naturally contests the propriety and legality of this award upon private respondent on the ground that said damages have not been alleged and proved during trial$ 5hat looms large as the issue in this case is whether or not the C+ME,EC gravely abused its discretion in awarding the aforecited damages in favor of private respondent$ 3he +mnibus Election Code provides that Cactual or compensatory damages may be granted in all election contests or in quo warrantoproceedings in accordance with law$D(11) C+ME,EC 2ules of 7rocedure provide that Cin all election contests the Court may ad&udicate damages and attorneys fees as it may deem &ust and as established by the evidence if the aggrieved party has included such claims in his pleadings$D (1 ) 3his appears to re>uire only that the &udicial award of damages be &ust and that the same be borne out by the pleadings and evidence$ 3he overriding re>uirement for a valid and proper award of damages, it must be remembered, is that the same is in accordance with law, specifically, the provisions of the Civil Code pertinent to damages$ !rticle .199 of the Civil Code mandates that Cexcept as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an ade>uate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved$ 8uch compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages$D 3he Civil Cod$e further prescribes the proper setting for allowance of actual or compensatory damages in the following provisionsA
,*T. --. . 'n contracts and quasi)contracts, the damages for #hich the o$ligor #ho

acted in good faith is lia$le shall $e those that are the natural and pro$a$le consequences of the $reach of the o$ligation, and #hich the parties have foreseen or could have reasona$ly foreseen at the time the o$ligation #as constituted.

'n case of fraud, $ad faith, malice or #anton attitude, the o$ligor shall $e responsi$le for all damages #hich may $e reasona$ly attri$uted to the non)performance of the o$ligation. ,*T. --.-. 'n crimes and quasi)delicts, the defendant shall $e lia$le for all damages #hich are the natural and pro$a$le consequences of the act or omission complained of. 't is not necessary that such damages have $een foreseen or could have reasona$ly $een foreseen $y the defendant.+ Considering that actual or compensatory damages are appropriate only in breaches of obligations in cases of contracts and >uasi@contracts and on the @ occasion of crimes and >uasi@delicts where the defendant may be held liable for all damages the proximate cause of which is the act or omission complained of, the monetary claim of a party in an election case must necessarily be hinged on either a contract or a >uasi@contract or a tortious act or omission or a crime, in order to effectively recover actual or compensatory damages$ (1") =n the absence of any or all of these, Cthe claimant must be able to point out a specific provision of law authori9ing a money claim for election protest expenses against the losing party$D(14) /or instance, the claimant may cite any of the following provisions of the Civil Code under the chapter on human relations, which provisions create obligations not by contract, crime or negligence, but directly by lawA
,*T. !. /very person must in the e%ercise of his rights and in the performance of his

duties, act #ith 0ustice, give everyone his due, and o$serve honesty and good faith. ,*T. -.. /very person #ho, contrary to la#, #illfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. %%% %%% %%% ,*T. 1-. ,ny pu$lic officer or employee, or any private individual, #ho directly or indirectly o$structs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the follo#ing rights and li$erties of another person shall $e lia$le to the latter for damages2 %%% 3"4 5reedom of suffrage6 %%% %%% %%% 'n any of the cases referred to in this article, #hether or not the defendants act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. % % %+(1<) Claimed as part of the damages to which private respondent is allegedly entitled to, is 7149, "4$:: constituting salary and other emoluments from March, 199 to !pril, 199" that would have accrued to him had there not been %%% %%%

an execution of the trial courts decision pending appeal therefrom in the C+ME,EC$ 3he long@standing rule in this &urisdiction is that notwithstanding his subse>uent ouster as a result of an election protest, an elective official who has been proclaimed by the C+ME,EC as winner in an electoral contest and who assumed office and entered into the performance of the duties of that office, is entitled to the compensation, emoluments and allowances legally provided for the position$(1;) 5e ratiocinated in the case of 2odrigue9 vs. 3an thatA
This is as it should $e. This is in 7eeping #ith the ordinary course of events. This is

simple 0ustice. The emolument must go to the person #ho rendered the service unless the contrary is provided. There is no averment in the complaint that he is lin7ed #ith any irregularity vitiating his election. This is the policy and the rule that has $een follo#ed consistently in this 0urisdiction in connection #ith positions held $y persons #ho had $een elected thereto $ut #ere later ousted as a result of an election protest. The right of the persons elected to compensation during their incum$ency has al#ays $een recogni8ed. 9e cannot recall of any precedent #herein the contrary rule has $een upheld.+(19) =n his concurring opinion in the same case, however, 6ustice 7adilla e>ually stressed that, while the general rule is that the ousted elective official is not obliged to reimburse the emoluments of office that he had received before his ouster, he would be liable for damages in case he would be found responsible for any unlawful or tortious acts in relation to his proclamation$ 5e >uote the pertinent portion of that opinion for emphasisA
Nevertheless, if the defendant, directly or indirectly, had committed unla#ful or

tortious acts #hich led to and resulted in his proclamation as senator)elect, #hen in truth and in fact he #as not so elected, he #ould $e ans#era$le for damages. 'n that event the salary, fees and emoluments received $y or paid to him during his illegal incum$ency #ould $e a proper item of recovera$le damage.(.:) 3he criterion for a&ustifiable award of election protest expenses and salaries and emoluments, thus, remains to be the existence of a pertinent breach of obligations arising from contracts or >uasi@contracts, tortious acts, crimes or a specific legal provision authori9ing the money claim in the context of election cases$ !bsent any of these, we could not even begin to contemplate liability for damages in election cases, except insofar as attorneys fees are concerned, since the Civil Code enumerates the specific instances when the same may be awarded by the court$
,*T. --.:. 'n the a$sence of stipulation, attorneys fees and e%penses of litigation,

other than 0udicial costs, cannot $e recovered, e%cept2

3 4 9hen e%emplary damages are a#arded6 3-4 9hen the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate #ith third persons or to incur e%penses to protect his interest6 314 'n criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff6 3;4 'n case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff6 (5) 9here the defendant acted in gross and evident $ad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, 0ust and demanda$le claim6 3<4 'n actions for legal support6 3=4 'n actions for the recovery of #ages of household helpers, la$orers and s7illed #or7ers6 3:4 'n actions for indemnity under #or7mens compensation and employers lia$ility la#s6 3!4 'n a separate civil action to recover civil lia$ility arising from a crime6 3 .4 9hen at least dou$le 0udicial costs are a#arded6 3 4 'n any other case #here the court deems it 0ust and equita$le that attorneys fees and e%penses of litigation should $e recovered.+(.1) Eiven the aforecited laws, and &urisprudence on the matter at issue, let us now loo' into the basis of respondent C+ME,EC for awarding actual damages to private respondent in the form of reimbursement for attorneys fees, actual expenses for xerox copies, and salary and other emoluments that should have accrued to him from March, 199 to !pril, 199" had the 23C not issued an order for execution pending appeal$ 3he /irst 0ivision of the C+ME,EC ruled on private respondents claim for actual or compensatory damages in this wiseA
% % % under the present legal setting, it is more difficult than in the past to secure an

a#ard of actual or compensatory damages either against the protestant or the protestee $ecause of the requirements of the la#. =n the instant case, however, 5e are disposed to conclude that the election protest filed by the protestant is clearly unfounded$ !s borne out by the results of the appreciation of ballots conducted by this Commission, apparently the protest was filed in bad faith without sufficient cause or has been filed for the sole purpose of molesting the protestee@appellant for which he incurred expenses$ 3he erroneous ruling of the Court which invalidated ballots which were clearly valid added more in&ury to the protestee@appellant$ 3his would have been bearable since he was able to perfect his appeal to this

Commission$ 3he final blow, however, came when the Court ordered the execution of &udgment pending appeal which, from all indications, did not comply with the re>uirements of 8ection ., 2ule 19 of the 2ules of Court$ 3here was no good and special reason at all to &ustify the execution of&udgment pending appeal because the protestees winning margin was 1 9 votes while that of the protestant @ after the Court declared him a winner @ was only a margin of 1" votes$ Clearly, the order of execution of &udgment pending appeal was issued with grave abuse of discretion$ /or these reasons, protestee@appellant see's to recover the followingA
> . ,ctual damages representing attorneys fees for the ne# counsel #ho handled the

,ppeal and the ?etition for (ertiorari $efore the (ourt of ,ppeals % % % )?1 =-, " ..... -. ,ctual e%penses for %ero% copying of ,ppellants @rief and the anne%es 3 ; copies at ? .". % % % )? ,-1"... 1. ,ctual e%penses for %ero% copying of $allots % % % ) ?1,! !.-. ;. ,ctual damages for loss of salary and other emoluments since March !!; as per attached (ertification issued $y the Municipal ,ccount of Aidapa#an % % % ) ?!<,:1-... 3up to Octo$er !!; only4 Fnder !rticle ..:; of the New Civil Code attorneys fees and expenses of litigation can be recovered *as actual damages- in the case of clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding$ !nd, while the case of Eulogio 2odrigue9, 8r$ vs. Carlos 3an *91 7hil$ <. - disallowed recovery of salaries and allowances *as damages- from elected officials who were later ousted, under the theory that persons elected has *sic- a right to compensation during their incumbency, the instant case is different$ 3he protestee@appellant was the one elected$ Be was ousted not by final &udgment but by an order of execution pending appeal which was groundless and issued with grave abuse of discretion$ 7rotestant@appellee occupied the position in an illegal manner as a usurper and, not having been elected to the office, but merely installed through a baseless court order, he certainly had no right to the salaries and emoluments of the office$ !ctual damages in the form of reimbursement for attorneys fees *71 <.,"::$::-, actual expenses for xerox copies (P15,154.00),unearned salary and other emoluments from March 199 to !pril 199" or 1 months at 71.,1: $:: a month *7149, "4$::-, totalled 7""<,11:$::$ 3o *sic- this amount, however, 71 ::,:::$:: representing that portion of attorneys fees denominated as Gsuccess fee must be deducted this being premised on a contingent event the happening of which was uncertain from the beginning$ Moral damages and exemplary

damages claimed are, of course, disallowed not falling within the purview of 8ection ."9 of the +mnibus Election Code$ =t goes without saying that if the protestant@appellee fails to pay the actual damages of 7."<,11:$::, the amount will be assessed, levied and collected from the bond of 7"::,:::$:: which he put up before the Court as a condition for the issuance of the order of execution of &udgment pending appeal$D (..) 7etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforecited decision on March .9, 1995. 3he C+ME,EC en banc, however, did not find any new matter substantial in nature, persuasive in character or sufficiently provocative to compel reconsideration of said decision and accordingly affirmed in toto the said decision$ Bence, this petition raises, among others, the issue now solely remaining and in need of final ad&udication in view of the mootness of the other issues anent petitioners right to the contested office the term for which has already expired$ 5e have painsta'ingly gone over the records of this case and we can attribute to petitioner no breach of contract or >uasi@contractH or tortious act nor crime that may ma'e him liable for actual damages$ Neither has private respondent been Cable to point out to a specific provision of law authori9ing a money claim for election protest expenses against the losing party$ C (.1) 5e find respondent C+ME,ECs reasoning in awarding the damages in >uestion to be fatally flawed$ 3he C+ME,EC found the election protest filed by the petitioner to be clearly unfounded because its own appreciation of the contested ballots yielded results contrary to those of the trial court$ !ssuming, ex gratia argumentis, that this is a reasonable observation not without basis, it is nonetheless fallacious to conclude a malicious intention on the part of petitioner to molest private respondent on the basis of what respondent C+ME,EC perceived as an erroneous ruling of the trial court$ =n other words, the actuations of the trial court, after the filing of a case before it, are its own, and any alleged error on its part does not, in the absence of clear proof, ma'e the suit Cclearly unfoundedD for which the complainant ought to be penali9ed$ =nsofar as the award of protest expenses and attorneys fees are concerned, therefore we find them to have been awarded by respondent C+ME,EC without basis, the election protest not having been a clearly unfounded one under the aforementioned circumstances$ 2espondent C+ME,EC also found the order granting execution of &udgment pending appeal to be defective because of alleged non@compliance with the re>uirement that there be a good and special reason (. ) to &ustify execution

pending appeal$ 5e, however, find that the trial court acted &udiciously in the exercise of its prerogatives under the law in issuing the order granting execution pending appeal$ /irst, it should be noted that the applicability of the provisions of the 2ules of Court, relating to execution pending appeal, has ceased to be debatable after we definitively ruled in Earcia vs. de 6esus(.") that C8ection ., 2ule 19 of the 2ules of Court, which allows 2egional 3rial Courts to order executions pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order, may be made to apply by analogy or suppletorily to election contests decided by them$D(.4) =t is not disputed that petitioner filed a bond in the amount of 7"::,:::$:: as re>uired under the 2ules of Court$ =t is also now a settled rule that Cas much recognition should be given to the value of the decision of a &udicial body as a basis for the right to assume office as that given by law to the proclamation made by the %oard of Canvassers$D (.<)
% % % 9hy should the proclamation $y the $oard of canvassers suffice as $asis of the

right to assume office, su$0ect to future contingencies attendant to a protest, and not the decision of a court of 0usticeB 'ndeed % % % the $oard of canvassers is composed of persons #ho are less technically prepared to ma7e an accurate appreciation of the $allots, apart from their $eing more apt to yield e%traneous considerations % % % the $oard must act summarily, practically raising 3sic4 against time, #hile, on the other hand, the 0udge has the $enefit of all the evidence the parties can offer and of admittedly $etter technical preparation and $ac7ground, apart from his $eing allo#ed ample time for conscientious study and mature deli$eration $efore rendering 0udgment % % %.+(.;) 5ithout evaluating the merits of the trial courts actual appreciation of the ballots contested in the election protest, we note on the face of its decision that the trial court relied on the findings of the National %ureau of =nvestigation *N%=handwriting experts which findings private respondent did not even bother to rebut$ 5e thus see no reason to disregard the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty on the part of the trial court &udge$ Capping this combination of circumstances which impel the grant of immediate execution is the undeniable urgency involved in the political situation in the Municipality of #idapawan, North Cotabato$ 3he appeal before the C+ME,EC would undoubtedly cause the political vacuum in said municipality to persist, and so the trial court reasonably perceived execution pending appeal to be warranted and &ustified$ !nyway, the bond posted by petitioner could cover any damages suffered by any aggrieved party$ =t is true that mere posting of a bond is not enough reason to &ustify execution pending appeal, but the nexus of circumstances aforechronicled considered together and in relation to one another, is the dominant consideration for the execution pending appeal$ (.9)

/inally, we deem the award of salaries and other emoluments to be improper and lac'ing legal sanction$ 2espondent C+ME,EC ruled that inapplicable in the instant case is the ruling in 2odrigue9 vs. 3an(1:) because while in that case the official ousted was the one proclaimed by the C+ME,EC, in the instant case, petitioner was proclaimed winner only by the trial court and assumed office by virtue of an order granting execution pending appeal$ !gain, respondent C+ME,EC sweepingly concluded, in &ustifying the award of damages, that since petitioner was ad&udged the winner in the elections only by the trial court and assumed the functions of the office on the strength merely of an order granting execution pending appeal, the petitioner occupied the position in an illegal manner as a usurper$ 5e hold that petitioner was not a usurper because, while a usurper is one who underta'es to act officially without any color of right, (11) the petitioner exercised the duties of an elective office under color of election thereto$ (1.) =t matters not that it was the trial court and not the C+ME,EC that declared petitioner as the winner, because both, at different stages of the electoral process, have the power to so proclaim winners in electoral contests$ !t the ris' of sounding repetitive, if only to emphasi9e this point, we must reiterate that the decision of a &udicial body is no less a basis than the proclamation made by the C+ME,EC@convened %oard of Canvassers for a winning candidates right to assume office, for both are undisputedly legally sanctioned$ 5e deem petitioner, therefore, to be a Cde facto officer who, in good faith, has haa possession of the office and had discharged the duties pertaining theretoD (11) and is thus Clegally entitled to the emoluments of the office$D (1 ) 3o recapitulate, 8ection ."9 of the +mnibus Election Code only provides for the granting in election cases of actual and compensatory damages in accordance with law$ 3he victorious party in an election case cannot be indemnified for expenses which he has incurred in an electoral contest in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or breach of obligation clearly attributable to the losing party$ Evidently, if any damage had been suffered by private respondent due to the execution of&udgment pending appeal, that damage may be said to be e>uivalent to damnum absque in uria, which is, damage without in&ury, or damage or in&ury inflicted without in&ustice, or loss or damage without violation of a legal right, or a wrong done to a man for which the law provides no remedy$(1") WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is E2!N3E0$ 5hile we uphold the C+ME,EC decision dated May 5, 199" that private respondent 6oseph Evangalista is the winner in the election for mayor of the Municipality of #idapawan, North Cotabato, that portion of the decision is

deemed moot and academic because the term of office for mayor has long expired$ 3hat portion of the decision awarding actual damages to private respondent 6oseph Evangelista is hereby declared null and void for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion and in excess of &urisdiction$ SO ORDERED