G.R. Nos. 206844. April 21, 2015

EN BANC [ G.R. Nos. 206844-45, April 21, 2015 ] COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON AND 1ST NOMINEE, FRANCISCO G. DATOL, JR. (DATOL GROUP), PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT, AND G.R. NO. 206982 - COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND INCUMBENT REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ATTY. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA (ARQUIZA GROUP), PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

The above-entitled cases were brought to the Court via two separate petitions filed by the rival factions of the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS). The first group - the Arquiza Group - was headed by Godofredo V. Arquiza, the organization's former representative in the House of Representatives; while the second group - the Datol Group - was led by Francisco G. Datol, Jr., the organization's erstwhile third nominee. For the May 13, 2013 elections, the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group filed their respective Manifestations of Intent to Participate under the name of SENIOR CITIZENS. The Manifestation of the Datol Group was docketed as SPP No. 12-157 (PLM), while that of the Arquiza Group was docketed as SPP No. 12-191 (PLM).

Before this Court, both groups assailed the Omnibus Resolution dated May; 10, 2013 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in SPP No. 12-157 (PLM) and SPP No. 12-191 (PLM), which denied due course to their respective Manifestations of Intent to Participate in the May 13, 2013 elections and cancelled the registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS on the ground that the term-sharing agreement of its nominees was allegedly in violation of the Constitution and election regulations.In a Decision[1] dated July 23, 2013, the Court declared that the COMELEC En Banc erred in disqualifying SENIOR CITIZENS, considering that said party-list organization had been denied due process and the purported term-sharing agreement had not been implemented such that there was no ground for the cancellation of its registration and accreditation. Given that SENIOR CITIZENS obtained 677,642 votes, the Court further ruled that said organization was entitled to be proclaimed as one of the winning party-list organizations in the May 13, 2013 elections. The dispositive portion of the Court's judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby rules that:

(1) The Extremely Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari (With Prayer for the Forthwith Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and/or Status Quo Ante Order [SQAO]) in G.R. Nos. 206844-45 and the Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari (With Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction) in G.R. No. 206982 are GRANTED;

(2) The Omnibus Resolution dated May 10, 2013 of the Commission on Elections En Banc in SPP No. 12-157 (PLM) and SPP No. 12-191 (PLM) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. is concerned; and

(3) The Commission on Elections En Banc is ORDERED to PROCLAIM the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. as one of the winning party-list organizations during the May 13, 2013 elections with the number of seats it may be entitled to based on the total number of votes it garnered during the said elections.[2]
As the COMELEC did not file any motion for reconsideration of the above ruling, the decision became final and executory on August 15, 2013.

On January 8, 2014, the Arquiza Group filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion: (1) To Cite in Contempt Respondent Comelec's Chairman and Members or, in the Alternative, Only its Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., Comm. Lucenito N. Tagle and Comm. Elias R. Yusoph; (2) To Declare as Deemed Proclaimed Petitioner Senior Citizens Party-List as Winner in the 13 May 2013 Election and Entitled to Two Seats; and (3) To Declare Petitioner's/Movant's Nominee No. 1 (Fmr. Cong. Godofredo V. Arquiza) and Nominee No. 2 (Mrs. Milagros A. Magsaysay) as the Nominees of Senior Citizens to Occupy the Two Party-list Seats it Won in the 13 May 2013 Election (hereinafter referred to as the Arquiza Group's Very Urgent Motion).

The Arquiza Group averred, among others, that SENIOR CITIZENS should have already been proclaimed despite the pendency of the proceedings involving the determination of the official nominees of the party-list group. The Arquiza Group claimed that the issue of which group is the official slate of SENIOR CITIZENS has not been resolved by the COMELEC for more than sixty (60) days from the submission of the last pleading by the parties. Therefore, the same should have already been resolved pursuant to Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution.[3]

In a Resolution dated January 21, 2014, the Court required the COMELEC and the Datol Group to comment on the Arquiza Group's Very Urgent Motion.

On February 11, 2014, the Arquiza Group then filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases. It alleged therein that on January 13, 2014, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution in SPP No. 12-157 (PLM) and SPP No. 12-191 (PLM) entitled, "In the Matter of the Proclamation of Senior Citizens." The dispositive portion of said resolution states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to DEFER the resolution of Senior Citizens' leadership dispute to the Regional Trial Court, for determination of the party's members and officers. As regards the party's qualifications to participate in the 2013 elections, the Commission DENIES DUE COURSE to the Manifestations of Intent to Participate respectively filed by Godofredo Arquiza and Francisco Datol, Jr. As such, all votes cast for the Senior Citizens party-list group should be deemed as stray votes.[4]
In the above Resolution, the COMELEC reviewed anew the qualifications of SENIOR CITIZENS and denied again both factions' Manifestations of Intent to Participate in the May 13, 2013 elections, this time on the grounds that (a) the Arquiza group failed to submit a coalition agreement as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 9366; (b) the Datol group was guilty of fraud in its submissions to the COMELEC; and (c) both groups were in violation of various election rules regarding party-list organizations.

The Arquiza Group stated that it challenged before the Court the above resolution through a Petition for Certiorari and/or Mandamus with Application for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, which was docketed as G.R. Nos. 210957-58. The Arquiza Group then prayed that said petition be consolidated with the instant cases.

In a Resolution dated March 11, 2014, this Court resolved to defer action on the motion to consolidate and hold in abeyance the consolidation pending the submission of the comments of the COMELEC and the Datol Group.

The Datol Group and the COMELEC duly filed their respective Comments to the Arquiza Group's Very Urgent Motion. Thereafter, in a Resolution dated July 8, 2014, the Court required the Arquiza Group to file a consolidated reply.

Instead of filing a consolidated reply, however, the Arquiza Group filed on August 19, 2014 a Manifestation with Motion to Enforce the Decision dated July 23, 2013. It stated, among others, that the Arquiza Group already filed a motion to withdraw its petition in G.R. Nos. 210957-58. The Arquiza Group further argued that the COMELEC failed and refused to implement the Court's Decision dated July 23, 2013. It insisted that the final and executory judgment of the Court calls for the proclamation of the SENIOR CITIZENS' legitimate nominees, namely, Godofredo V. Arquiza and Milagros A. Magsaysay. Thus, the Arquiza Group prayed that its manifestation be noted and that the Court issue an order directing the COMELEC under pain of contempt to proclaim SENIOR CITIZENS and its aforesaid legitimate nominees as its duly elected party-list Congressmen.

On August 22, 2014, the Arquiza Group filed another Manifestation whereby it attached a copy of its Motion to Withdraw Petition in G.R. Nos. 210957-58.

In a Resolution dated September 2, 2014, the Court deferred acting on the above manifestations and reiterated the Resolution dated July 8, 2014 that required the Arquiza Group to submit a consolidated reply.

On September 25, 2014, the counsel of the Arquiza Group filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Petitioner, stating that said withdrawal was with the conformity of the said group. In the Resolution dated October 7, 2014, this Court granted the said motion and ordered the Arquiza Group to inform the Court of the name of its new counsel.

Meanwhile, on October 3, 2014, the Arquiza Group filed a Most Respectful Motion to Resolve the 19 August 2014 Motion (To Enforce a Final and Executory Judgment), asking the Court to resolve its Motion to Enforce the Decision dated July 23, 2013 and praying again for an order directing the COMELEC to proclaim SENIOR CITIZENS and its legitimate nominees, Godofredo V. Arquiza and Milagros A. Magsaysay.

In the Resolution dated October 21, 2014, this Court again deferred acting on the motion to resolve filed by the Arquiza Group and reiterated the Resolution dated July 8, 2014 requiring the submission of a consolidated reply.

On December 16, 2014, the Arquiza Group filed a Manifestation, informing the Court that Godofredo Arquiza is now the counsel of the group and that the copies of pleadings, orders, resolutions, and all other pertinent documents be furnished to him. The Arquiza Group stated that it will no longer file a consolidated reply, adding that it is no longer interested in having the COMELEC Chairman and the COMELEC members cited for contempt. It merely wants the law to be upheld.

On January 29, 2015, the Arquiza Group then filed a VERY URGENT SECOND MOTION FOR EARLY RESOLUTION and for the Proclamation of Godofredo V. Arquiza as First Nominee and Milagros A. Magsaysay as Second Nominee of Senior Citizens Party-list (hereinafter referred to as the Arquiza Group's Second Motion). The Arquiza Group merely reiterated its prayer for the Court to issue an order, directing the COMELEC to comply with the Court's Decision dated July 23, 2013 and proclaim Godofredo V. Arquiza and Milagros A. Magsaysay as the legitimate nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS.

Thereafter, on March 17, 2015, the Arquiza Group filed a THIRD MOTION FOR EARLY RESOLUTION and for the Proclamation of Godofredo V. Arquiza as First Nominee and Milagros A. Magsaysay as Second Nominee of Senior Citizens Party-list (hereinafter referred to as the Arquiza Group's Third Motion).

In the above motion, the Arquiza Group claims that the COMELEC already resolved that "the claim of Francisco G. Datol, Jr. to be the rightful nominee of the party, is not only without any basis, but is spurious and fraudulent." Furthermore, the Arquiza Group alleges that the Court already ruled in Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections and Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc.[5] that there exists a serious doubt as to whether or not the Datol Group is the proper representative of SENIOR CITIZENS. Similarly, the Arquiza Group argues that the issue as to who the real members of SENIOR CITIZENS are had long been resolved by the Securities and Exchange Commission En Banc and that the Arquiza Group is the legitimate faction of SENIOR CITIZENS. Again, the Arquiza Group prayed for the Court to "issue an Order to immediately PROCLAIM GODOFREDO ARQUIZA and MILAGROS A. MAGSAYSAY as duly elected representatives of the SENIOR CITIZENS Party-list[.]"

The Court denies for lack of merit the Arquiza Group's prayer for the proclamation of Godofredo V. Arquiza as First Nominee and Milagros A. Magsaysay as Second Nominee of SENIOR CITIZENS.

It bears emphasis that in our Decision dated July 23, 2013 in the above-entitled cases, we deliberately refrained from discussing the issue relating to the leadership dispute between the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group, given that the same was not specifically raised in their respective petitions. The Court adjudged that said issue should be threshed out in separate proceedings before the proper tribunal having jurisdiction thereon.

From the various pleadings filed with the Court by the parties herein, it became apparent that after the promulgation of our Decision dated July 23, 2013, the COMELEC actually proceeded to conduct hearings in order to settle the leadership dispute between the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group. However, no settlement was arrived at.

The COMELEC, thereafter, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2014, which not only failed to resolve the intra-party leadership dispute within SENIOR CITIZENS, but also denied due course to both of the rival groups' Manifestations of Intent to Participate in the May 13, 2013 elections. Consequently, the votes obtained by SENIOR CITIZENS during said elections were declared as stray votes. The COMELEC found the Arquiza Group and the Datol Group guilty of violating elections rules, as well as their party-list organization's own by-laws. The COMELEC then referred the settlement of the groups' dispute to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

As previously mentioned, the Arquiza Group assailed COMELEC Resolution dated January 13, 2014 before the Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as G.R. Nos. 210957-58. However, the Arquiza Group withdrew its petition in G.R. Nos. 210957-58.

Thus, as things now stand, the leadership dispute between the rival groups is yet to be settled.

In this sad state of affairs, the Court cannot be forced to intervene. Clearly, the Arquiza Group's Manifestation with Motion to Enforce the Decision dated July 23, 2013, and all the motions subsequent thereto, ultimately pray for one thing only, i.e., for the nominees of the Arquiza Group to be proclaimed by this Court. In effect, what the Arquiza Group is asking is for the Court to settle their intra-party leadership dispute by mere motion alone after receiving an unfavorable ruling from the COMELEC. This procedural shortcut cannot be sanctioned. We emphasize that the intra-party leadership dispute must be resolved in the proper proceedings. This is in line with the long-standing rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. Incidentally, it should be made clear that there is nothing in this Resolution that would prevent the opposing factions within SENIOR CITIZENS to amicably settle their dispute in order to obviate costly and time-consuming litigation.

Notwithstanding the fact that this Court is unable to proclaim the individual nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS that are entitled to occupy the two seats it earned in the May 13, 2013 elections, there is merit in petitioner Arquiza group's prayer for the enforcement of the Court's previous directive to the COMELEC to proclaim SENIOR CITIZENS as a winning party-list organization in the last elections. To reiterate, the Court's Decision dated July 23, 2013 which contained the aforementioned directive became final and executory on August 15, 2013.

The established doctrine is that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.[6]

It is likewise settled in jurisprudence that "[p]ublic policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable controversies with finality."[7]

Yet, to this day, the COMELEC has not issued a certificate of proclamation in favor of SENIOR CITIZENS. The pendency of an intra-party leadership dispute is not a bar to the issuance of such a certificate of proclamation. As can be gleaned from the records, a certificate of proclamation in favor of a winning party-list organization only contains the name of the winning party-list organization and the number of seats to which it is entitled. What should be held in abeyance is the assumption of office of the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS until such nominees have been finally determined either through litigation or a settlement between the rival factions.

However, it has come to the Court's attention that, instead of implementing our final ruling to proclaim SENIOR CITIZENS as a winning party-list organization, the COMELEC issued on January 13, 2014 a resolution which in effect re-evaluated the qualifications of SENIOR CITIZENS as a party-list group in relation to the May 13, 2013 elections. This time the COMELEC denied the opposing factions' Manifestations of Intent to Participate in the May 13, 2013 elections on new grounds and declared SENIOR CITIZENS' votes as stray votes.

Although petitioner Arquiza group has withdrawn its motion to cite the COMELEC in contempt, the Rules of Court authorize the Court to motu proprio initiate indirect contempt proceedings when warranted.[8] There is indirect contempt when there is "[d]isobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court."[9] For this reason, the Court finds it appropriate to direct respondent COMELEC to show cause why it should not be cited in indirect contempt for failing to comply with our final and executory Decision dated July 23, 2013 and for issuing the Resolution dated January 13, 2014, insofar as it denied SENIOR CITIZENS' Manifestations of Intent to Participate in the May 13, 2013 elections and declared its votes as stray votes.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to:
(a) DENY the Arquiza Group's prayer for the Proclamation of Godofredo V. Arquiza as First Nominee and Milagros A. Magsaysay as Second Nominee of the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.;

(b) GRANT the Arquiza Group's prayer for enforcement of our final and executory Decision dated July 23, 2013 and DIRECT the COMELEC to immediately proclaim the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. as a winning party-list organization in the May 13, 2013 elections entitled to two seats in the House of Representatives; and

(c) DIRECT the COMELEC to show cause why it should not be cited in indirect contempt for failing to comply with our final and executory Decision dated July 23, 2013 and for issuing the Resolution dated January 13, 2014, insofar as it denied the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc.'s Manifestations of Intent to Participate in the May 13, 2013 elections and declared its votes as stray votes. Velasco, Jr. and Jardeleza, JJ., no part.

[1] Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 206844-45 and 206982, July 23, 2013, 701 SCRA 786.[2] Id. at 822-823.

[3] Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution states:

SEC. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
[4] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 206844-45), Vol. II, p. 897.

[5] Minute Resolution, G.R. No. 203673, September 17, 2013.

[6] National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173802, April 7, 2014.

[7] Edillo v. Dulpina, 624 Phil. 587, 600-601 (2010).

[8] The first paragraph of Rule 71, Section 4 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. - Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
[9] Rule 71, Section 3(b).