FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-329. April 16, 1946. ]
VICENTE SOTTO, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ET AL., Respondents.
Lorenzo Sumulong and Jose P. de Leon for Petitioner.
First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Solicitor Gianzon for respondent Commission on Elections.
Respondent Emilio M. Javier in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. COURTS; REVIEW BY SUPREME COURT OF JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF INFERIOR COURTS; APPEAL, WRIT OF ERROR, OR CERTIORARI. — Under section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution of the Philippines, as well as the Rules of Court, final judgments and decrees of the inferior or lower courts may be reviewed by this court by appeal, writ of error, or certiorari. by appeal the appellate court reviews all the findings of law and of fact of the court a quo, as in special proceedings (Rule 105, Rules of Court). By writ of error the appellate court reviews only the findings of law or of fact of the lower court assigned in the assignment of errors of the appellant, as in ordinary civil actions (section 19, Rule 48). And by certiorari the appellate or superior court can only review questions or errors of law decided or committed by the lower court, as provided in Rules 43, 44 and 46 of the Rules of Court.
2. ID.’ ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT OF COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS. — In accordance with the provision of section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 657, this court can not review the rulings or findings of fact of the Commission of Elections.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION NOT TO BE DECIDED UNLESS RAISED AND UNAVOIDABLE. — It is well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties, and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for
consideration until a case arises in which a decision upon such question will be unavoidable.
4. CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS; BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SPECIAL MEETINGS; NOTICE TO EVERY DIRECTOR. — The great weight of authority is to the effect that notice of a special meeting must be given to every director, unless there is some express provision in the charter or by- laws or established usage to the contrary, or unless it is impossible or impracticable to do so. Except in these cases, a special meeting held in the absence of some of the directors, and without any notice to them, is illegal, and the action at such a meeting, although by a majority of the directors, is invalid, unless subsequently ratified or unless rights have been acquired by innocent third persons, as against whom the corporation must be held estopped. A provision that a majority shall form a board for the transaction of business does not change the rule.
5. ID.; JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF POLICY OF A PARTY. — The Commission on Elections has no jurisdiction to determine a question regarding a matter of policy of a party (section 3, Commonwealth Act No. 657 in connection with section 2, article X, Philippine Constitution).
Per PERFECTO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
6. RECOGNIZED LEADERSHIP. — In the controversy for leadership of the political party known as Popular Front (Sumulong), under the facts in the case, respondent E. M. J. appears to be unanimously recognized as the president and national leader of the party from 1941 until the rift occurred in February, 1946, concerning the political fight between Osmeña and Roxas as candidates for the position of President of the Philippines.
7. NATIONAL CONVENTION RECOGNIZED. — It appears that respondent J counts with the recognition of the national convention which met on January 27, 1946, in Manila, said organism being considered by both litigants as the supreme authority in internal organization of the party.
8. POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT. — Under section 2 of Article X of the Constitution of the Philippines, the Supreme Court may review and overrule all pronouncements of the Commission on Elections, including those relating to facts.
9. ATTITUDE OF SECOND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. — The members of the Second National Assembly, which adopted the constitutional amendment creating the Commission on Elections, were aware of the fact that the greater majority of the questions, the decision on which has been transferred from the municipal councils and boards, Department of the Interior, and Courts of First Instance, to the Commission on Elections, are of fact, and it would be unwise to limit the reviewing power of the Supreme Court to questions of law alone.
10. MAJORITY RULE. — The Commission on Elections acted correctly in pronouncing that the action taken by the four minority members of the directorate of the Popular Front (Sumulong), in accepting J’s resignation, was null and void and could not have the effect of ousting J from the party’s presidency or replacing him by petitioner’s invalid designation, it being admitted that the Popular Front (Sumulong) is a political organization governed, not by minority rule, but by majority rule.
11. HISTORY BEING REPEATED. — The present division in the ranks of the Popular Front (Sumulong) has its analogy in the party strife which divided in 1934 the Democrata Party, in which the leadership of said party was decided by the courts of first instance of almost all the provinces of the Philippines and by the Supreme Court against J. S., one of the outstanding political figures of the country.
12. UNFOUNDED BITING LANGUAGE USED BY A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. — One of the members of the Commission on Elections, without any evidence to support it, Accused in his dissenting opinion respondent J of being deceitful and disloyal to his fellow party members and bosom friends. The language is against the purpose of the authors of the amendments creating the Commission on Elections to make it an impartial and independent body, which will consider all questions submitted to it with judicial criterion, disinterestedness, and equanimity.
2. ID.’ ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT OF COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS. — In accordance with the provision of section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 657, this court can not review the rulings or findings of fact of the Commission of Elections.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION NOT TO BE DECIDED UNLESS RAISED AND UNAVOIDABLE. — It is well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties, and that when it is raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional question will be left for
consideration until a case arises in which a decision upon such question will be unavoidable.
4. CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS; BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SPECIAL MEETINGS; NOTICE TO EVERY DIRECTOR. — The great weight of authority is to the effect that notice of a special meeting must be given to every director, unless there is some express provision in the charter or by- laws or established usage to the contrary, or unless it is impossible or impracticable to do so. Except in these cases, a special meeting held in the absence of some of the directors, and without any notice to them, is illegal, and the action at such a meeting, although by a majority of the directors, is invalid, unless subsequently ratified or unless rights have been acquired by innocent third persons, as against whom the corporation must be held estopped. A provision that a majority shall form a board for the transaction of business does not change the rule.
5. ID.; JURISDICTION OF COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF POLICY OF A PARTY. — The Commission on Elections has no jurisdiction to determine a question regarding a matter of policy of a party (section 3, Commonwealth Act No. 657 in connection with section 2, article X, Philippine Constitution).
Per PERFECTO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
6. RECOGNIZED LEADERSHIP. — In the controversy for leadership of the political party known as Popular Front (Sumulong), under the facts in the case, respondent E. M. J. appears to be unanimously recognized as the president and national leader of the party from 1941 until the rift occurred in February, 1946, concerning the political fight between Osmeña and Roxas as candidates for the position of President of the Philippines.
7. NATIONAL CONVENTION RECOGNIZED. — It appears that respondent J counts with the recognition of the national convention which met on January 27, 1946, in Manila, said organism being considered by both litigants as the supreme authority in internal organization of the party.
8. POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT. — Under section 2 of Article X of the Constitution of the Philippines, the Supreme Court may review and overrule all pronouncements of the Commission on Elections, including those relating to facts.
9. ATTITUDE OF SECOND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. — The members of the Second National Assembly, which adopted the constitutional amendment creating the Commission on Elections, were aware of the fact that the greater majority of the questions, the decision on which has been transferred from the municipal councils and boards, Department of the Interior, and Courts of First Instance, to the Commission on Elections, are of fact, and it would be unwise to limit the reviewing power of the Supreme Court to questions of law alone.
10. MAJORITY RULE. — The Commission on Elections acted correctly in pronouncing that the action taken by the four minority members of the directorate of the Popular Front (Sumulong), in accepting J’s resignation, was null and void and could not have the effect of ousting J from the party’s presidency or replacing him by petitioner’s invalid designation, it being admitted that the Popular Front (Sumulong) is a political organization governed, not by minority rule, but by majority rule.
11. HISTORY BEING REPEATED. — The present division in the ranks of the Popular Front (Sumulong) has its analogy in the party strife which divided in 1934 the Democrata Party, in which the leadership of said party was decided by the courts of first instance of almost all the provinces of the Philippines and by the Supreme Court against J. S., one of the outstanding political figures of the country.
12. UNFOUNDED BITING LANGUAGE USED BY A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. — One of the members of the Commission on Elections, without any evidence to support it, Accused in his dissenting opinion respondent J of being deceitful and disloyal to his fellow party members and bosom friends. The language is against the purpose of the authors of the amendments creating the Commission on Elections to make it an impartial and independent body, which will consider all questions submitted to it with judicial criterion, disinterestedness, and equanimity.
D E C I S I O N
FERIA, J.:
This is a petition filed by Vicente Sotto for review of the decision of the Commission on Elections which declared the respondent Emilio M. Javier as the true and legitimate President of the Popular Front (Sumulong) Party. The petitioner Vicente Sotto contends in his petition that he is the President of said party, and prays that said decision be reviewed and reversed and that petitioner be declared the legitimate President of the Party.
The Commission on Elections after stating the facts and the evidence submitted by both parties in this case, makes, among others, the following findings of fact and law in its decision.
"Creemos que no hay ninguna discusion sobre el hecho de que durante la enfermedad del difiunto, Don Juan Sumulong, y despues del fallecimiento de este, el Dr. Emilio M. Javier actuo y fue reconocido por los miembros del partido como presidente interino del Partido Frente Popular (Sumulong), por los menos, hasta el 1. de febrero de 1946, en que cuatro miembros del directorio del partido tomaron la resolucion (Exhibit E) aceptando la dimision presentada por aquel el 30 de abril de 1942, sometida a dichos miembros el 1. de febrero de 1946. El mismo, Sr. Lorenzo Sumulong, abogado del Sr. Vicente Sotto, admitio ante la Comision que el Dr. Javier era el presidente interino del partido durante dicho periodo de tiempo, si bien le califico como presidente interino de facto.
"Se sostiene por el Sr, Vicente Sotto que el Dr. Javier dejo de ser presidente interino del partido en virtud de su carta dimision (Exhibit F) que fue aceptada el 1.
The Commission on Elections after stating the facts and the evidence submitted by both parties in this case, makes, among others, the following findings of fact and law in its decision.
"Creemos que no hay ninguna discusion sobre el hecho de que durante la enfermedad del difiunto, Don Juan Sumulong, y despues del fallecimiento de este, el Dr. Emilio M. Javier actuo y fue reconocido por los miembros del partido como presidente interino del Partido Frente Popular (Sumulong), por los menos, hasta el 1. de febrero de 1946, en que cuatro miembros del directorio del partido tomaron la resolucion (Exhibit E) aceptando la dimision presentada por aquel el 30 de abril de 1942, sometida a dichos miembros el 1. de febrero de 1946. El mismo, Sr. Lorenzo Sumulong, abogado del Sr. Vicente Sotto, admitio ante la Comision que el Dr. Javier era el presidente interino del partido durante dicho periodo de tiempo, si bien le califico como presidente interino de facto.
"Se sostiene por el Sr, Vicente Sotto que el Dr. Javier dejo de ser presidente interino del partido en virtud de su carta dimision (Exhibit F) que fue aceptada el 1.
