SC finds 'no compelling reasons' to reverse judgment vs guv's aide
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled to "deny with finality" a Motion for Reconsideration on an earlier lower court judgment against a top aide of Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas.
Finding no compelling reasons to warrant a reversal, the SC upheld a February 19, 2008 Resolution that excluded Manuel Mejorada from the voters' list of Barangay Amparo, Pavia, Iloilo.
As such, no further pleadings will ever be entertained, the SC ruling added, thus raising the question anew – Is Mejorada still qualified as alter-ego of the governor despite now being 'de-classified' and taken off the list as a resident of Iloilo province?
Mejorada was picked by Tupas to serve as Provincial Administrator, the post requiring a basic qualification -- must be a resident of the province being served.
The SC ruling was dated June 10, 2008 in an En Banc decision yet was made public only over the weekend.
"Let entry of judgment be made in due course," it further stated with copies sent to the Solicitor General, Commission on Elections and the Election Registration Board of Pavia among others.
To recall, the case dragged to the Court of Appeals (CA) Special Nineteenth Division denying Mejorada's Petition to set aside the exclusion case against him.
Lawyer Cornelio Panes, counsel of petitioners against Mejorada has since claimed victory with a challenge issued then, "go ahead. Go to the Supreme Court (SC) and fight your lost case. It would be good to find you in the Jurisprudence of the SC."
Panes was apparently proven right with Jurisprudence now set on G.R. No. 176976.
The CA Resolution on the other hand was docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-SP No.02173 where Associate Justice Agustin Dizon found Mejorada's Petition "bereft of merit" thus the denial.
Associate Justices Isaias Dicdican and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla concurred with the said CA Decision.
Mejorada in his CA Petition not only moved to set aside his exclusion from the voters' list in Pavia, Iloilo. He also prayed for damages since "due to unfounded and malicious suit," he suffered sleepless nights, besmirched reputation and social humiliation.
And considering his stature as provincial official, Mejorada further argued to the CA, moral damages of P500,000 was due him alongside thousands more for his legal and litigation expenses. Also, Mejorada told the CA, the exclusion case was nothing but a suit "filed for the sole purpose of molesting and causing him to incur expenses" and it was also baseless and meant to harass him.
Mejorada blamed his former boss, Secretary Augusto Syjuco, Director-General of Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda) as the one responsible for all the charges, an act he said that meant to get back at him for exposing Syjuco's anomalies.
On the issue of his residency in Pavia, Mejorada maintains the regularity of such saying he only kept his city address and residence in Jaro, Iloilo City "for convenience only."
And he cannot be excluded in Pavia's voters' list since it was there where he cast his vote in the 2004 elections. Further still, Mejorada charged that the Lower Courts committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
The CA altogether junked his arguments.
"The petition is bereft of merit. It has already been established in the lower courts based on the evidence on record, both documentary and testimonial that petitioner Manuel P. Mejorada is neither a resident nor a domiciliary within the purview of election laws of Brgy. Amparo, Pavia, Iloilo," excerpts of the CA Decision went.
And "untenable" too, the CA averred Mejorada's contention that because he was able to vote in Pavia during the 2004 elections, then he remains a rightful voter of said town.
"As correctly ruled by the RTC, the registry list of voters for use in an election is conclusive on the question as to who have the right to vote in said election. However, the list is not conclusive with respect to future elections," the Decision continued.
There was also no grave abuse of discretion for the part of the lower courts, the CA decided.
"It is our considered view that herein petitioner has not shown any arbitrariness, despotism or capriciousness on the part of the respondent courts in rendering the assailed decisions," the Decision further stated.