Codilla v De Venecia

Facts:

Petitioner garnered the highest votes in the election for

representative in the 4th district of Leyte as against respondent Locsin.
Petitioner won while a disqualification suit was pending. Respondent
moved for the suspension of petitioners proclamation. By virtue of the
Comelec ex parte order, petitioners proclamation was suspended.
Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and
consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner.
Upon motion by petitioner, the resolution was however reversed and a new
resolution declared respondents proclamation as null and void.
Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to subsequent resolution
publicly known while petitioner asserted his right to the office he won.
Issues:
1. Whether or not respondents proclamation was valid.
2. Whether or not the Comelec had jurisdiction in the instant case.
3. Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.
HELD:
1. The respondents proclamation was premature given that the case
against petitioner had not yet been disposed of with finality. In fact, it was
subsequently found that the disqualification of the petitioner was null and
void for being violative of due process and for want of substantial factual
basis. Furthermore, respondent, as second placer, could not take the seat
in office since he did not represent the electorates choice.
2. Since the validity of respondents proclamation had been assailed by
petitioner before the Comelec and that the Comelec was yet to resolve it, it
cannot be said that the order disqualifying petitioner had become final.
Thus Comelec continued to exercise jurisdiction over the case pending
finality. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to review resolutions or decisions of the Comelec. A petition for
quo warranto must also fail since respondents eligibility was not the issue.
3. The facts had been settled by the COMELEC en banc, the
constitutional body with jurisdiction on the matter, that petitioner won.
The rule of law demands that its (Comelecs) Decision be obeyed by all
officials of the land. Such duty is ministerial. Petitioner had the right to the

office which merits recognition regardless of personal judgment or opinion.