G.R. No.

178678 April 16, 2009

DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SENERES, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, respondents.

DOCTRINE/TOPIC: Legislative; de facto officer

FACTS:

In 1999, respondent Melquiades Robles was elected as President of the partylist group Buhay
Hayaan Yumabong (Buhay) which provides a three-year term for all its party officers without re-election.
BUHAY participated in the 2001 and 2004 elections, and filed a Manifestation for desire to participate
again in the 2007 elections. However, Hans Seneres who held himself as acting president and sec-
general of BUHAY also filed with COMELEC but presented a different set of names to run in the
upcoming elections. Señeres claims that the nominations made by Robles were null and void owing to
the expiration of the latter's term as party president.

Señeres also claims that since Robles was an Acting Administrator of the Light Railway Transport
Authority (LRTA), a government-controlled corporation, he should be disqualified from being an officer
of any political party. Señeres was expelled as a party member by BUHAY’s National Council for
submitting a Certificate of Nomination for the party. This was followed by COMELEC’s Resolution E.M.
No. 07-043 recognizing and declaring Robles as BUHAY’s president since there was no party election
held to replace him, making him to taker on the position as a hold-over capacity.

Thus, petitioner Señeres files for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to nullify and enjoin the implementation of
the Resolution dated July 19, 2007 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which declared
respondent Melquiades Robles (Robles) as the President of Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (Buhay).

Señeres contends that because of Robles undertaking the BUHAY Presidency, being a
nominating officer and an Administrator of the LRTA, he is engaging in electioneering or partisan
political campaign.

ISSUE:

1. WON COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its challenged Resolution.
2. WON Respondent is engaging in partisan political campaign.

RULING:

1. NO. The SC finds the petition without merit and the invocation of certiorari is an improper
remedy for this case as a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law was
available to Señeres.
Under Article VI Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution “The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of their respective Members.” Electoral Tribunal, or the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualification of its Members. Their jurisidiction also begins once the candidate
becomes a House Representative member.

The Court states that petitioner should have filed a Petition for Quo Warranto before the HRET, with
the COMELEC as National Board of Canvassers already proclaimed BUHAY as a winning party-list
organization for the 2007 elections and are entitled to 3 seats in the House of Representatives; along
with the Resolution of Robles as duly authorized representative of Buhay. The fact that said nominees,
including Robles, have taken their oath and assumed their duties in the HOR, then the proper recourse
would have been said Quo Warranto petition within 10 days from receipt of the COMELEC Resolution.

Petitioner’s failure to file within the prescriptive period entails for the decision to become final and
executory thus, his present petition has become moot and can be dismissed.

2. NO. Under Section 79 of the Omnibus Election Code, the terms ‘election campaign’ or ‘partisan
political activity’ “refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular
candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include:

(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other groups of persons for the
purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies,
for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against
a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the
election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the
election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
If performed for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nominations for candidacy to a
public office, then these above-mentioned acts are NOT considered to be partisal election activity.

More importantly, Robles’ act of submitting a nomination list does not fall within the context of the
Election Code, and petitioner also failed to show proof that Robles committed any of the acts
enumerated under said Code. Nevertheless, even if Robles did commit any of the acts, as long as it is for
the prupose of enhancing the nomination of particular aspirants, then it is not prohibited electioneering.

The Court rules that the twin acts of signing and filing a Certificate of Nomination are purely internal
processes of the party or organization and are not designed to enable or ensure the victory of the
candidate in the elections. Robles was merely complying with COMELEC requirements in providing a list
of nominated party-list representatives. Said list was NOT A SOLE ACT OF ROBLES, but rather, THE
BUHAY’S OFFICIAL ACT AND PRODUCT AS A NATIONAL COUNCIL.

Regarding the “Hold-Over” Doctrine, the Court attests to its legality and as a general rule under Section
23 of the Corporation Code that officers and directors of a corporation hold over after the expiration of
their terms before their successors are elected or appointed. Said officer is regarded as a de facto
officer. By fiction of law, the acts of such de facto officer are considered valid and effective.

Lastly, the bar of estoppel precludes Seneres from goinf back on his own acts and representations to
the prejudice of another whom he has led to rely upon them. Robles, as BUHAY President, signed a
corresponding certificate in the 2004 elections which included Seneres as one of the nominees. Since
Robles’ term expired on 2002 (as he was elected as Party president on 1999), he was already an hold-
over President during that period and yet, petitioner did not question Robles’ authority then. It is clear
that Seneres benefited from such act and authority hence, he should not question it now.

The Court DISMISSES the Petition and AFFIRMS COMELEC’s RESOLUTION.