COMELEC v. MAMALINTA

Commission on Elections, petitioner, vs. Bai Haidy Mamalinta, respondent.

G.R. No. 226622

March 14, 2017

FACTS:

During the May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections, petitioner Commission on Elections (COMELEC) appointed Mamalinta as Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) for South Upi, Maguindanao, together with Abdullah K. Mato (Mato) and Pablito C. Pefiafiel (Penafiel), Sr. as Vice-Chairman and Member, respectively. While performing their functions as such, the MBOC allegedly committed the following acts:

(a) on May 16, 2004, the MBOC proclaimed Datu Israel Sinsuat (Sinsuat) as Mayor, Datu Jabarael Sinsuat6 as Vice-Mayor, and eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Bayan as winning candidates, on the basis of nineteen (19) out of the thirty-five (35) total election returns;

(b) on even date, the MBOC caused the transfer of the place for canvassing of votes from Tinaman Elementary School, South Upi, Maguindanao to Cotabato City without prior authority from the COMELEC;

(c) two days later or on May 18, 2004, they proclaimed a new set of winning candidates, headlined by Antonio Gunsi, Jr. (Gunsi) as Mayor and four (4) new members of the Sangguniang Bayan on the basis of thirty (30) out ofthirtyfive (35) election returns.

The COMELEC Law Department to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the matter. Thereafter, the COMELEC Law Department recommended the filing of administrative and criminal cases against the members of the MBOC, and subsequently, Mamalinta was formally charged with Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross Inefficiency and Incompetence, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Mamalinta denied the charges against her, essentially claiming that the MBOC's acts of double proclamation and transferring the place for canvassing were attended by duress in view of the imminent danger to their lives due to the violence and intimidation initiated by Gunsi's supporters.

The COMELEC En Banc found Mamalinta guilty of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and accordingly, dismissed her from public service, with imposition of all accessory penalties relative thereto. The Comelec did not lend credence to Mamalinta's claim of duress and/or threats, opining her failure to substantiate the same.

Mamalinta moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Then she appealed to the CSC. The CSC affirmed the COMELEC En Banc ruling. The CSC likewise did not lend credence to Mamalinta' s claims of violence, opmmg that they were self-serving, absent any evidence supporting the same.

Mamalinta filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto the Minutes 19 of the MBOC dated May 14 and 15, 2004 and the Report20 dated May 16, 2004, both prepared by Pefiafiel narrating the incidents that transpired during the canvassing in South Upi, Maguindanao. Such motion was, however, denied by the CSC. She, then, elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

The CA reversed and set aside the CSC ruling, and accordingly, reinstated Mamalinta to her former position prior to her dismissal, without loss of seniority rights, and with payment of the corresponding back salaries and all benefits which she would have been entitled to if not for her illegal dismissal. The COMELEC moved for reconsideration, which was, however, denied. Hence, this petition.

Issues:

a. Whether or not the CA correctly reversed and set aside the CSC ruling. 

b. Whether or not consequently, absolved Mamalinta from the administrative charges of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Held:

a. No. On the basis of double proclamation and the unauthorized transfer of the place for canvassing the CA can reserve and set aside the CSC ruling as they were under heavy duress. Duress, force, fear or intimidation to be available as a defense, must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. This was proven by the evidences of the respondent.

However, on the basis of premature proclamation of Sinsuat as the winning candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of election returns, the respondent is administratively liable. Jurisprudence provides that all votes cast in an election must be considered, otherwise voters shall be disenfranchised. An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted. This is true when the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the election. The allegations of Mamalinta that force and threats were exerted on her to make said premature proclamation are self-serving and not supported by any other evidence, hence, cannot be relied upon.

b. No. Mamalinta may be absolved from administrative liability for her acts of double proclamation and unauthorized transfer of the place for canvassing as such acts were done under duress. However, Mamalinta is administratively liable for her premature proclamation of Sinsuat as the winning candidate on the basis of an incomplete canvass of votes. Hence, therefore, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals decisions are reserved and set aside. Respondent Bai Haidy D. Mamalinta is hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, her civil service eligibility is CANCELLED, and her retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, are hereby FORFEITED. Further, she is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution.