G.R. No. L-53532 July 25, 1980
NOLI M. VENEZUELA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ARTEMIO R. SALDIVAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Noli M. Venezuela sought the disqualification of Artemio R. Saldivar as a candidate for Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, in the January 30, 1980 elections. The initial petition, filed before the election, was grounded on criminal charges pending against Saldivar before the Sandiganbayan. However, those charges were dismissed on February 4, 1980. Subsequently, on February 19, 1980, Venezuela filed a new petition for disqualification with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), this time invoking the constitutional prohibition against turncoatism, specifically Article XII, C, Section 10, which bars an elective officer from changing party affiliation during the term for which he was elected. The COMELEC dismissed this second petition without conducting a hearing.
Saldivar was proclaimed Mayor by the board of canvassers on February 6, 1980. Venezuela appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing that the COMELEC’s dismissal without a hearing violated procedural due process. He invoked the Court’s prior rulings in Reyes v. COMELEC and Pimentel v. COMELEC, where similar disqualification cases were remanded to the COMELEC for a full hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the disqualification petition without a hearing, and whether the Supreme Court should remand the case for such a hearing or dismiss it in favor of a post-election remedy.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic proceeds from the nature and timing of the proceeding. While the petitioner correctly cited precedents emphasizing the necessity of a hearing on disqualification issues to satisfy due process, a critical distinguishing factor controlled the disposition. The disqualification petition based on turncoatism was filed only on February 19, 1980, which was after the election and, more importantly, after respondent Saldivar had already been proclaimed the winner on February 6, 1980.
Consequently, the proceeding could no longer be characterized as a pre-proclamation controversy. The Court held that the proper remedy for the petitioner, under the circumstances, was not a continued disqualification case before the COMELEC but a post-election action before the regular courts. Since the office involved was that of a municipal mayor, the appropriate forums for challenging the winner’s right to hold office are an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding filed in the proper court of first instance. This approach would conserve judicial resources, as the COMELEC was inundated with similar controversies, and would provide a more orderly and comprehensive venue for threshing out the factual and legal issues. The Court thus granted petitioner a period of ten days from receipt of the resolution to institute such a quo warranto suit or election protest.