Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BIENVENIDO
O.
MARQUEZ,
JR., petitioner, as to embrace those who merely were facing criminal
vs.
charges. They finally came out with Article 73 of the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDUARDO T. IRR of Local Government Code 1991.
RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
Art. 73. Disqualifications. The following persons
VITUG, J.:
shall be disqualified from running for any elective
local position:
FACTS:
(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political
Bienvenido Marquez, a defeated candidate for the
cases here or abroad. Fugitive from justice refers to
elective position in the Province of Quezon in the 11th
a person who has been convicted by final judgment.
May
1992
elections
filed
this
petition Private respondent reminds us that the construction
for certiorari praying for the reversal of the resolution placed upon law by the officials in charge of its
of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") which enforcement deserves great and considerable weight.
dismissed his petition for quo warranto against the The Court certainly agrees; however, when there
winning candidate, herein private respondent Eduardo clearly is no obscurity and ambiguity in an enabling
Rodriguez, for being allegedly a fugitive from justice.
law, it must merely be made to apply as it is so written.
It is averred that at the time private respondent filed An administrative rule or regulation can neither
his certificate of candidacy, a criminal charge against expand nor constrict the law but must remain
him for ten (10) counts of insurance fraud or grand congruent to it. The Court believes and thus
theft of personal property was still pending before the holds, albeit with some personal reservations of
Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, the ponente, that Article 73 of the Rules and
County of Los Angeles, State of California, U.S.A. A Regulations Implementing the Local Government
warrant issued by said court for his arrest, it is Code of 1991, to the extent that it confines the term
claimed, has yet to be served on private respondent "fugitive from justice" to refer only to a person (the
on account of his alleged "flight" from that country.
fugitive) "who has been convicted by final judgment."
Before the 11th May 1992 elections, a petition for is an inordinate and undue circumscription of the law.
cancellation (SPA 92-065) of respondent's certificate Unfortunately, the COMELEC did not make any
of candidacy, on the ground of the candidate's definite finding on whether or not, in fact, private
disqualification under Section 40(e) of the Local respondent is a "fugitive from justice" as such term
Government Code, was filed by petitioner with the must be interpreted and applied in the light of the
COMELEC. On 08 May 1992, the COMELEC Court's opinion. The omission is understandable since
dismissed the petition.
the COMELEC dismissed outrightly the petition
Petitioner's subsequent recourse to this Court (in G.R. for quo warranto on the basis instead of Rule 73 of the
No. 105310) from the 08th May 1992 resolution of Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Oversight
COMELEC was dismissed without prejudice, however, Committee. The Court itself, not being a trier of facts,
to the filing in due time of a possible post-election quo is thus constrained to remand the case to the
warranto proceeding against private respondent.
COMELEC for a determination of this unresolved
Private respondent was proclaimed Governor-elect of factual matter.
Quezon on 29 May 1992. Forthwith, petitioner WHEREFORE, the questioned resolutions of the
institutedquo warranto proceedings (EPC 92-28) Commission on Elections are REVERSED and SET
against private respondent before the COMELEC. In ASIDE, and the case is hereby REMANDED to the
its 02 February 1993 resolution, the COMELEC Commission which is DIRECTED to proceed and
(Second Division) dismissed the petition. The resolve the case with dispatch conformably with the
COMELEC En Banc, on 02 December 1993, denied a foregoing opinion. No special pronouncement on
reconsideration of the resolution.
costs.
Hence, this petition for certiorari
SO ORDERED.
ISSUE:
whether private respondent who, at the time of the
filing of his certificate of candidacy (and to date), is
said to be facing a criminal charge before a foreign
court and evading a warrant for his arrest comes
within the term "fugitive from justice" contemplated by
Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code and,
therefore, disqualified from being a candidate for, and
thereby ineligible from holding on to, an elective local
office.
HELD:
The law needs no further interpretation and
construction. Section 40(e) of Republic Act No. 7160,
is rather clear and it disqualifies "fugitive from justice"
includes not only those who flee after conviction to
avoid punishment but likewise those who, after being
charged flee to avoid prosecution.
The Oversight Committee evidently entertained
serious apprehensions on the possible constitutional
infirmity of Section 40(e) of Republic Act No. 7160 if
the disqualification therein meant were to be so taken
contracted
with.
The powers of a municipality are two-fold in character:
public, governmental or political on the one hand; and
corporate, private, or proprietary on the other.
Governmental powers are those exercised by the
corporation in administering the powers of the state
and promoting the public welfare. These include the
legislative, judicial public, and political. Municipal
powers, on the other hand, are exercised for the
special benefit and advantage of the community.
These include those which are ministerial, private and
corporate.
This distinction of powers are necessary in
determining the liability of the municipality for the acts
of its agents which result in injury to third persons.
If the injury is caused in the course of the performance
of a governmental function/duty, no recovery can be
had from the municipality unless there is an existing
statute on the matter, nor from its officers, so long as
they performed their duties honestly and in good faith
or that they did not act wantonly and maliciously.
With respect to proprietary functions, the settled rule is
that a municipal corporation can be held liable to third
persons ex contract or ex delicto. They may also be
subject to suit upon contracts and its tort.