Catarata, impending mayor?

By Butch Bagabuyo

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.” –– [Silver Stallion] James Branch Cabell (1879-1958)

THE other day, I represented former Valencia City Mayor Leandro Jose Catarata in a Quo Warranto (a case questioning the legality of the respondent’s right to assume office) case against incumbent City Mayor Jose M. Galario Jr. Without going into the merits of the case, here is exactly what transpired during that swift and fulfilling hearing.

Petitioner Leandro Jose Catarata, his other lawyer from Valencia City, Atty. Yony Yulo, and I appeared before the First Division of the Commission on Elections for the scheduled pre-trial conference. There was only one case scheduled for hearing before the said division on that day.

The case which was duly scheduled two weeks prior to that day started on time. There were only two Commissioners present. The Chairman of the division, we were told, was somewhere else due to an engagement.

After the case was called, we entered our appearances and informed the acting chair that we were ready for the day’s scheduled hearing. Unfortunately, despite due notice, the respondent, Mr. Jose M. Galario Jr., was not around. Neither was his lawyer(s). Nor was an explanation, either by phone, text or whatever, given to the division prior to the hearing.

For failure to appear and to submit on time (at least one day before) the required pre-trial brief, pursuant to the Section 5, rule 13 of the rules of procedure of the Commission on Elections, as amended, we asked and was  granted that the respondent, Galario, be declared as in default. Not in default, but only “as in default” because the respondent submitted earlier through the mail his five-page verified answer to our petition for Quo Warranto (to oust him from office).

In our manifestation before the said first division of the Comelec, we asked that the Commission grant our plea for a preliminary mandatory injunction –– to temporarily oust Galario and to allow petitioner, Catarata, to act as City Mayor pending the decision of the case –– and to have the case considered as submitted for decision based on the judgment on the pleadings (rule 34) or summary judgment (rule 35), which was immediately granted.

In fine, we have asked––and granted by the Comelec––that the case be now considered as submitted for decision without further hearings. However, the Comelec also asked us and we agreed to submit within 10 days our memorandum of authorities on why Galario should be ousted from office and petitioner, Leandro Jose Catarata, installed as the duly elected City Mayor of the City of Valencia in the 13 May 2013 elections.

Our main brief is that Galario should not only be ousted from his office as city mayor of Valencia City, but he should and must be sent to jail pronto to serve his final criminal conviction for violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act. Pursuant to the final decision of the Supreme Court, Galario should be imprisoned for a period of six years and one month as minimum to seven years as maximum, and to be perpetually disqualified from government service (be it appointive or elective).

This case is a precedent setting or a novel case. This is so because nobody has ever been disqualified and/or ousted from elective public office by the Comelec without a petition for a disqualification or cancellation of certificate of candidacy being filed against a respondent prior to an election. Neither has there ever been an elective public official (city mayor, as in the instant case) ousted from his office without first filing an election protest and/or quo warranto case (as in the case at bar) within 10 days from his proclamation by the concerned Board of Canvassers.

Galario was proclaimed by the City Board of Canvassers of Valencia City right after the canvassing of votes and he assumed office on June 30, 2013. On the other hand, Catarata filed this quo warranto case, among others, during the first week of December 2013. But Galario was convicted by final judgment of the Supreme Court only last 30 September 2013.

Clearly, therefore, the Comelec is given the difficult task of balancing of interests. The rules provide that quo warranto must be filed within the 10-day period after proclamation. But the disqualification of Galario came into being only on Sept. 30, 2013, long after the lapse of the 10-day period within which to file the quo warranto case pursuant to the Comelec rules of procedure. On the other hand, Comelec’s own rules of procedure provide that where a case is not covered by its own rules, the Rules of Court may be resorted to by analogy or suppletory character in effect. And pursuant to the Rules of Court quo warranto may be filed within one year from the occurrence thereof. Undoubtedly, the disqualification  (final conviction) of Galario came about long after his proclamation but well within the one-year period as provided for under the Revised Rules of Court.

If you were the judge in this case, which would you choose and adopt––the Comelec rules of procedure or the Rules of Court, as duly provided for by the Commission’s rules as well?

And which do you think is good for Valencia City, the words that kill or the intent that gives life?