EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-56532. September 21, 1981.]
CUSTODIO O. PARLADE, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES and PONCIANO M. MORTERA, Respondents.
Jose L. Africa for Petitioner.
Quiazon, De Guzman, Makalintal and Barot for Private Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
In the election of officers of the Quezon City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the two candidates for president, Parlade and Mortera, each obtained 327 votes. The chapter election committee denied Mortera’s motion to validate and count in his favor the ballot of one Arroyo, 69 years old and afflicted with physical infirmity brought about by a cerebral stroke, whose vote for him was not counted because the ballot was prepared by another. As required by the IBP by-laws, therefore, the two candidates drew lots. Parlade drew the winning lot and was proclaim duly-elected president. Before he could take his oath, however, Mortera filed a protest with the IBP Board of Governors. The Board, finding that Arroyo actually authorized Acierto to write Mortera’s name in his ballot, set aside the ruling of the Board of Canvassers and of the Committee on Elections, and, counting the contested ballot in favor of Mortera, declared him dulye-elected President of the Quezon City Chapter for the term 1981-1983. Montera thereafter took his oath. Hence, in this petition Parlade alleges that the Board of Governors acted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court held that certiorari does not lie to annul the Board of Governor’s resolution because it did not act with grave abuse of discretion in regarding the contested ballot as a valid vote for Montera; and that the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final.
The Supreme Court held that certiorari does not lie to annul the Board of Governor’s resolution because it did not act with grave abuse of discretion in regarding the contested ballot as a valid vote for Montera; and that the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; RESOLUTION OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN CASE AT BAR DECLARING BALLOT VALID, NOT A CASE FOR. —Where is shown that Arroyo, 69 years old and afflicted with a physical infirmity brought about by a cerebral stroke, sought Acierto’s assistance in preparing his ballot; that he had even protested against the confiscation of his ballot by the chairman of the board of canvassers; and that, in fact, Arroyo freely voted for Mortera with the assistance of Acierto, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines did not act with grave abuse of discretion when, acting upon a petition filed by Mortera who obtained the same number of votes as his rival candidate for president, it set aside the ruling of the Board of Canvassers and of the Committee on Elections declaring invalid the contested ballot, counted the ballot in favor of Mortera, and declared Mortera duly-elected President of the Quezon City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Hence, certiorari will not lie to annul said resolution.
2. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES; ELECTION OF OFFICERS; DECISION OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN ELECTION CONTESTS, FINAL. — Section 13 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by-laws provides that the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final.
3. ID.; ID.; BAR INTEGRATION; GOVERNING PRINCIPLE. — One of the governing principles in the integration of the bar is "maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court" (Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, quoted in the Resolution of this Court on Bar Integration, 69 O.G. 593; 49 SCRA 22, 25).
2. LEGAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES; ELECTION OF OFFICERS; DECISION OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN ELECTION CONTESTS, FINAL. — Section 13 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines by-laws provides that the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final.
3. ID.; ID.; BAR INTEGRATION; GOVERNING PRINCIPLE. — One of the governing principles in the integration of the bar is "maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court" (Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, quoted in the Resolution of this Court on Bar Integration, 69 O.G. 593; 49 SCRA 22, 25).
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
In the election of the officers of the Quezon City chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, held in the City Hall on February 28, 1981, the two candidates for president, Custodio Parlade and Ponciano M. Mortera, each obtained 327 votes.
To break the tie, the chapter’s election committee resolved to require Parlade and Mortera to draw lots as prescribed in Section 12(k) of the IBP by-laws.
At that juncture, Mortera called the committee’s attention to the ballot of Eduardo E. Arroyo, Sr., whose vote for Mortera was not counted because it was prepared by Pedro R. Acierto. Arroyo’s ballot was placed in the envelope for spoiled and invalid ballots. Mortera moved that Arroyo’s vote be counted in his favor.
The election committee held a hearing on Mortera’s motion. The committee heard the testimonies of Acierto and Manuel C. Cortes, who explained why the ballot of Arroyo was confiscated by Cesar P. Javier, the chairman of the board of canvassers for Precinct No. 2, Arroyo’s precinct.
The committee upheld the invalidation of Arroyo’s ballot by the board of canvassers. Mortera asked for the reconsideration of that ruling. The committee denied his motion.
Before the lots were drawn, Mortera manifested in writing to the election committee that his assent to the drawing of lots was without prejudice to his recourse to any appropriate legal remedy.
Parlade drew the winning lot. The election committee proclaimed him as the duly-elected president. Diosdado P. Peralta, the incumbent chapter president, in his letter dated March 3, 1981 apprised the president of the IBP that Parlade and others were elected officers of the Quezon City chapter. Parlade took his oath of office on March 5.
But before that oath-taking, or on March 3, Mortera filed with the IBP Board of Governors a protest wherein he prayed that Arroyo’s vote be counted in his favor, that Parlade’s proclamation be set aside and that he, Mortera, be adjudged the duly elected president. Parlade answered the protest.
After hearing and consideration of the evidence of the parties, the Board declared Mortera the duly elected president. The Board’s resolution dated March 26, 1981 reads:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
". . . Finding that witness Eduardo Arroyo, Sr. did on fact vote for candidate Ponciano Mortera because he actually authorized and directed Pedro Acierto to write ‘Mortera’ in his ballot and that Arroyo’s subsequent disclaimer of this authority and instruction was a mere afterthought which is not entitled to credence, and on motion duly seconded. the Board after agreeing to accept the written votes of absent Governors,
Resolved (Res. No. 4-81-47) to reverse and set aside the ruling of the Board of Canvassers of Precinct No. II and of the Committee on Elections in the 28 February 1981 Quezon City Chapter elections declaring invalid the contested ballot and to count this ballot in favor of petitioner Ponciano M. Mortera, and further resolved that petitioner Mortera be, as he hereby is, declared the duly elected President of the Quezon City Chapter for the term 1981-1983."cralaw virtua1aw library
On March 27, Mortera took his oath of office. On March 30, Parlade filed in this Court the instant special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition wherein he assailed the Board’s resolution. In this Court’s resolution of April 9, 1981, Leovillo C. Agustin, the duly elected vice-president, was directed to administer the affairs of the Quezon City chapter in an acting capacity.
Annexed to Parlade’s petition is an affidavit of Arroyo dated March 2, 1981, or two days after the election, wherein he alleged that he asked Acierto to hold his blank ballot while he (Arroyo) familiarized himself with the election materials and made up his mind as to the candidates for whom he would vote. He averred that he intended later on to request Acierto to write in the ballot the names of his (Arroyo’s) candidates.
After some interval, Arroyo asked Acierto for his ballot. He was informed that Acierto had already filled it up by writing the name of Mortera in the space for president and that the ballot was confiscated by a member of the board of canvassers as a void ballot because voting by proxy is not allowed and its preparation violated the secrecy of the ballot.
Arroyo further alleged that Acierto was not authorized to fill up his ballot because he had not as yet apprised Acierto of his (Arroyo’s) choices among the candidates for the different elective positions (p. 35, Rollo).
The crucial fact in this case is that Arroyo freely voted for Mortera with the assistance of Acierto. His vote was decisive. It gave Mortera a majority of one over Parlade.
There is no question that Arroyo, 69 (admitted to the bar in 1939), was afflicted with a physical infirmity brought about by a cerebral stroke. It may be true, as contended by Parlade, that Arroyo could sign his name as shown in his signature in the voter’s list and in his aforementioned affidavit (Exh. 1 and 4-A) but then that is a habitual act on his part amounting to a reflex action.
Writing the names of other persons would be a different thing and that would explain why he had to seek Acierto’s assistance. Arroyo even protested against the confiscation of his ballot by Javier by saying: "Wala namang violation doon. Mababali wala naman ang pagpunta ko rito" (p. 25, Rollo). Arroyo did not complain that he did not authorize Acierto to fill up his (Arroyo’s) ballot.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
We hold that the Board of Governors did not act with grave abuse of discretion in regarding Arroyo’s ballot as a valid vote for Mortera. Hence, certiorari does not lie to annul its resolution.
As correctly observed by the respondents, the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final (Sec. 13, IBP By-Laws). And one of the governing principles in the integration of the bar is "maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court" (Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, quoted in the Resolution of this Court on Bar Integration, 69 O.G. 593, 49 SCRA 22, 25).
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., are on leave.
Makasiar, J., reserves his vote.
To break the tie, the chapter’s election committee resolved to require Parlade and Mortera to draw lots as prescribed in Section 12(k) of the IBP by-laws.
At that juncture, Mortera called the committee’s attention to the ballot of Eduardo E. Arroyo, Sr., whose vote for Mortera was not counted because it was prepared by Pedro R. Acierto. Arroyo’s ballot was placed in the envelope for spoiled and invalid ballots. Mortera moved that Arroyo’s vote be counted in his favor.
The election committee held a hearing on Mortera’s motion. The committee heard the testimonies of Acierto and Manuel C. Cortes, who explained why the ballot of Arroyo was confiscated by Cesar P. Javier, the chairman of the board of canvassers for Precinct No. 2, Arroyo’s precinct.
The committee upheld the invalidation of Arroyo’s ballot by the board of canvassers. Mortera asked for the reconsideration of that ruling. The committee denied his motion.
Before the lots were drawn, Mortera manifested in writing to the election committee that his assent to the drawing of lots was without prejudice to his recourse to any appropriate legal remedy.
Parlade drew the winning lot. The election committee proclaimed him as the duly-elected president. Diosdado P. Peralta, the incumbent chapter president, in his letter dated March 3, 1981 apprised the president of the IBP that Parlade and others were elected officers of the Quezon City chapter. Parlade took his oath of office on March 5.
But before that oath-taking, or on March 3, Mortera filed with the IBP Board of Governors a protest wherein he prayed that Arroyo’s vote be counted in his favor, that Parlade’s proclamation be set aside and that he, Mortera, be adjudged the duly elected president. Parlade answered the protest.
After hearing and consideration of the evidence of the parties, the Board declared Mortera the duly elected president. The Board’s resolution dated March 26, 1981 reads:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
". . . Finding that witness Eduardo Arroyo, Sr. did on fact vote for candidate Ponciano Mortera because he actually authorized and directed Pedro Acierto to write ‘Mortera’ in his ballot and that Arroyo’s subsequent disclaimer of this authority and instruction was a mere afterthought which is not entitled to credence, and on motion duly seconded. the Board after agreeing to accept the written votes of absent Governors,
Resolved (Res. No. 4-81-47) to reverse and set aside the ruling of the Board of Canvassers of Precinct No. II and of the Committee on Elections in the 28 February 1981 Quezon City Chapter elections declaring invalid the contested ballot and to count this ballot in favor of petitioner Ponciano M. Mortera, and further resolved that petitioner Mortera be, as he hereby is, declared the duly elected President of the Quezon City Chapter for the term 1981-1983."cralaw virtua1aw library
On March 27, Mortera took his oath of office. On March 30, Parlade filed in this Court the instant special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition wherein he assailed the Board’s resolution. In this Court’s resolution of April 9, 1981, Leovillo C. Agustin, the duly elected vice-president, was directed to administer the affairs of the Quezon City chapter in an acting capacity.
Annexed to Parlade’s petition is an affidavit of Arroyo dated March 2, 1981, or two days after the election, wherein he alleged that he asked Acierto to hold his blank ballot while he (Arroyo) familiarized himself with the election materials and made up his mind as to the candidates for whom he would vote. He averred that he intended later on to request Acierto to write in the ballot the names of his (Arroyo’s) candidates.
After some interval, Arroyo asked Acierto for his ballot. He was informed that Acierto had already filled it up by writing the name of Mortera in the space for president and that the ballot was confiscated by a member of the board of canvassers as a void ballot because voting by proxy is not allowed and its preparation violated the secrecy of the ballot.
Arroyo further alleged that Acierto was not authorized to fill up his ballot because he had not as yet apprised Acierto of his (Arroyo’s) choices among the candidates for the different elective positions (p. 35, Rollo).
The crucial fact in this case is that Arroyo freely voted for Mortera with the assistance of Acierto. His vote was decisive. It gave Mortera a majority of one over Parlade.
There is no question that Arroyo, 69 (admitted to the bar in 1939), was afflicted with a physical infirmity brought about by a cerebral stroke. It may be true, as contended by Parlade, that Arroyo could sign his name as shown in his signature in the voter’s list and in his aforementioned affidavit (Exh. 1 and 4-A) but then that is a habitual act on his part amounting to a reflex action.
Writing the names of other persons would be a different thing and that would explain why he had to seek Acierto’s assistance. Arroyo even protested against the confiscation of his ballot by Javier by saying: "Wala namang violation doon. Mababali wala naman ang pagpunta ko rito" (p. 25, Rollo). Arroyo did not complain that he did not authorize Acierto to fill up his (Arroyo’s) ballot.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
We hold that the Board of Governors did not act with grave abuse of discretion in regarding Arroyo’s ballot as a valid vote for Mortera. Hence, certiorari does not lie to annul its resolution.
As correctly observed by the respondents, the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final (Sec. 13, IBP By-Laws). And one of the governing principles in the integration of the bar is "maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the Supreme Court" (Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, quoted in the Resolution of this Court on Bar Integration, 69 O.G. 593, 49 SCRA 22, 25).
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is affirmed. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., are on leave.
Makasiar, J., reserves his vote.
