This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| No amount of explanation or justification can erase the fact that Judge Quitain was dismissed from the service and that he deliberately withheld this information. His insistence that he had no knowledge of A.O. No. 183 is belied by the newspaper items published relative to his dismissal. It bears emphasis that in the Mindanao Times dated April 18, 1995,[18] Judge Quitain stated in one of his interviews that "I was dismissed from the (Napolcom) office without due process." It also reads: "Quitain, who was one of the guests in yesterday's Kapehan sa Dabaw, wept unabashedly as he read his prepared statement on his dismissal from the government service." Neither can we give credence to the contention that he was denied due process. The documents submitted by the NAPOLCOM to the OCA reveal that Commissioner Alexis C. Canonizado, Chairman Ad Hoc Committee, sent him summons on March 19, 1993 informing him that an administrative complaint had been filed against him and required him to file an answer.[19] Then on March 29, 1993, respondent, through his counsel, Atty. Pedro Castillo, filed an Answer.[20] In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[21] Furthermore, as we have earlier mentioned and which Judge Quitain ought to know, cessation from office by his resignation does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic.[22] Judge Quitain was removed from office after investigation and was found guilty of grave misconduct. His dismissal from the service is a clear proof of his lack of the required qualifications to be a member of the Bench. | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| We draw from past experience. A pattern of conduct observed in past elections has been the "pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong- the-protest-slogan of some candidates or parties." Really, where a victim of a proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene. It may not be out of place to state that in the long history of election contests in this country, x x x successful contestant in an election protest often wins but "a mere pyrrhic victory, i.e., a vindication when the term of office is about to expire or has expired." Protests, counter-protests, revisions of ballots, appeals, dilatory tactics, may well frustrate the will of the electorate. And what if the protestant may not have the resources and an unwavering determination with which to sustain a long drawn-out election contest? In this context therefore all efforts should be strained as far as is humanly possible to take election returns out of the reach of the unscrupulous; and to prevent illegal or fraudulent proclamation from ripening into illegal assumption of office.[98] | |||||
|
2006-03-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| "It is, indeed, true that, after proclamation, the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in an election is to be found in an election protest. But that is so only on the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Where as in the case at bar the proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office cannot in any way affect the basic issues." (Aguam v. Commission on Elections, 23 SCRA 883 [1968]; cited in Agbayani v. Commission on Elections, 186 SCRA 484 [1990]).[25] Thus, the Comelec was correct in annulling the proclamation of petitioner for being based on an erroneous computation of votes. As the Court declared in Espidol v. Commission on Elections, [26] where the proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the Commission the power to declare such proclamation a nullity. We emphasized that a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office. [27] | |||||