Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Electoral Tribunal Building
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City

SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO,
Petitioner,

-versus- HRET Case No. 16-022 (QW)

Lone District, Ifugao

TEODORO B. BAGUILAT, JR.

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

Before this tribunal is a petition for Quo Warranto filed

by the Petitioner, Solomon Chungalao against Respondent,
Teodoro Baguilat, Jr. on the ground of the Respondent’s
dismissal from public office meted to him by the Office of the
Ombudsman, with its accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from holding public office pursuant to Section
52(a), Nos. 2 and 3, Rule IV in relation to Section 58 (a) of CSC
Resolution No. 991936. The pertinent facts of the case are as
follows.

The Petitioner, SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, is of legal

age, Filipino Citizen, married, resident and registered voter of
Clustered Precint No. 0025C (VIN No. 2701-0025C-
L0455SRC10000) of Brgy. Ibayong, Bocos, Banaue, and
exercised his right to vote during the May 9, 2016 National
and Local Elections.

The petitioner exercised his right as a registered voter of

the Congressional district of Ifugao to oust the Respondent
Congressman on the ground of inegibility to hold such office.
Hence, Petitioner has legal personality.

The Petitioner avers that the Respondent is ineligible to

serve as Member of the House of Representatives of the Lone
Legislative District of Ifugao because Respondent is
perpetually disqualified from holding public office having
meted the penalty of dismissal with perpetual disqualification
from holding public office by the Ombudsman.

The Respondent Teodoro B. Baguilat, Jr. was the elected

Governor of the Province of Ifugao from the term 2007- 2010.

On September 24, 2009, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan

of Ifugao filed a Complaint for with the Office of the
Ombudsman against Respondent for violation of Sections 46(a)
and 96 (c) of RA 7160. The Respondent for several occasions,
failed to give notice to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of his
travels abroad.

They filed against Respondent for Grave Misconduct,

Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Officer and Gross
Neglect of Duty.

The Ombudsman, on January 16, 2013, found

Respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of
Duty and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal together
with its accessory penalties.

The Respondent filed before the Ombudsman a

Manifestation and Motion for Extension of time to file Motion
for Reconsideration on April 16 2013 or eight (8) days after he
received the decision on April 8, 2013. He filed the Motion for
Reconsideration on April 29, 2013.

In an order dated June 25, 2013, the Ombudsman

denied Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration ruling that
the Motion filed by the Respondent was beyond the
reglementary period to file the same.

Aggrieved Respondent filed a Petition for Review before

the CA in which the latter on March 19, 2015, overturned the
Ombudsman’s decision by resolving that the Respondent
cannot be made liable for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect
of Duty.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ifugao timely filed an

Earnest Motion for Reconsideration of the on March 19, 2015
Decision of the Court of Appeals. Likewise, the Ombudsman
intervened and filed its own Motion for Reconsideration and
argued that its decision dated January 16, 2013 had already
become final and executory.

However, both motions filed by the SP Ifugao and

Ombudsman were denied by the Court of Appeals.

Come National and Elections of May 9, 2016, Respondent

filed his Certificate of Candidacy and was voted for the
position of Member, House of Representatives Lone District of
Ifugao. Hence, this petition for Quo Warranto filed by the
Petitioner.

In his answer, the Respondent averred that the petition

for quo warranto was not timely filed invoking Rule 18 of the
2015 Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
which states that: “A verified petition for quo warranto on the
ground of ineligibility may be filed by any registered voter of the
congressional district concerned, or any registered voter in the
case of party-list representatives, within fifteen (15) days from
June 30 of the election year or the date of the actual assumption
to office, whichever is later x x x”.

The Petitioner in its reply invoked the second paragraph

of the Rule 18 of the same HRET Rules The provisions of the
preceding paragraph to the contrary notwithstanding, a petition
for quo warranto may be filed by any registered voter of the
district concerned against a Member of the House of
Representatives, on the ground of citizenship, at anytime during
said Member's tenure. The Petitioner invoked that a petition for
quo warranto may also be filed at any time for grounds that
occur during the term of office of the winning candidate.\

RECOMMENDATION:

The petition filed by the Petitioner is filed out of time.

According to the HRET Rules of 2015, under Rule 18, the
verified petition for quo warranto on the ground of ineligibility
may be filed may be filed by any registered voter of the
congressional district concerned, or any registered voter in the
case of party-list representatives, within fifteen (15) days from
June 30 of the election year or the date of the actual
assumption to office, whichever is later. Hence the filing of the
Petitioner of the petition for Quo Warranto only on August 8,
2016 is already too late. The petition should have been filed, at
the latest, on July 15 or fifteen days after actual assumption
of office.

The second paragraph of Rule 18 is clear that it is only

on the ground of citizenship that a petition for quo warranto
can be filed at anytime.

Under Rule 21 of the 2015 HRET RULES, it states that

“the period for the filing of the appropriate protest or petition, as
prescribed in Rules 17 and 18, is jurisdictional and cannot be
extended. If the last day falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a
legal holiday, the last day for filing the appropriate protest or
petition shall fall on the next working day.” Hence it is clear
that the period is non- extendible.
In the case of In Hofer v. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal1, the Court sustained the dismissal by the
HRET of the election protest for failure to comply strictly with
the period prescribed by the HRET Rules.

The Court has emphasized the importance of compliance

with the HRET Rules prescribing reglementary periods to be
observed by the parties in an election contest to expedite the
disposition of election controversies so as not to frustrate the
will of the electorate.

Moreover, on the issue raised by the Petitioner

mentioning the case of Jalosjos vs, COMELEC, that it is the
COMELEC’s duty to cancel motu proprio the candidate’s COC
notwithstanding the absence of any petition initiating a quasi-
judicial proceeding for the resolution of the same. The Court in
the case of Tagolino vs HRET2, it states that: “HRET has no
authority to review final and executory resolutions or decisions
of the COMELEC that it rendered pursuant to its powers
under the Constitution, no matter if such resolutions or
decisions are erroneous. The parties cannot by agreement
confer such authority on HRET”.

In the case, the COMELE did not cancel the COC of the
Petitioner. Hence, HRET cannot overturn the valid COC of the
Petitioner.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully

recommended that the petition be dismissed for being filed out
of time.

1 Hofer vs HRET, G.R. No. 158833, May 12, 2004

2
Tagolino vs HRET, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013
 *** Assuming that the case was filed on time and be given
due course, the case should prosper on the ground that the
decision of the Ombudsman must be given due course. The
January 2013 decision of the Ombudsman has already
attained its finality. While the Court of Appeals overturned the
ruling of the Ombudsman, the same has been appealed before
the Supreme Court in which the case is still pending. Hence,
the CA decision has not attained its finality.

Under Administrative Order No. 1, amending Rule III

of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman now
reads:

Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. Where

the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in
case of conviction where the penalty imposed is
public censure or reprimand, suspension of not
more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one
month salary, the decision shall be
final, executory and unappealable. In all other
cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals on a verified petition for review under the
requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from the
receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order
denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

An appeal shall not stop the decision from

being executory. In case the penalty is
suspension or removal and the respondent wins
such appeal, he shall be considered as having
been under preventive suspension and shall be
paid the salary and such other emoluments that
he did not receive by reason of the suspension or
removal.
 A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases shall be executed as a
matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman
shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly
enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or
failure by any officer without just cause to comply
with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to
remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be
ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
(Emphasis supplied)

Hence, even if the case is ongoing appeal, the

decision of the Ombudsman should now be executory
and Respondent’s meted penalty of perpetual
disqualification from holding any other office should be
upheld until present time.

The Court in Ombudsman vs CA and Macabulos3

held that the pertinent ruling in Lapid v. Court of
Appeals has already been superseded by the
case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon.
Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, which clearly
held that decisions of the Ombudsman are
immediately executory even pending appeal.

Hence, the petition must be granted.

3
Ombudsman vs CA, .R. No. 159395, May 7, 2008