[CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE JUDICIARY – ATTY.
LA VIÑA – DLSUCOLB72019] 1
In Re: Nomination of Atty. Lynda Chaguile. IBP Ifugao President, as replacement 2.
for IBP Governor for Northern Luzon, Denis B. Habawel
(A.M. No. 13-04-03-SC, December 10, 2013)
HELD/RATIO:
DOCTRINE:
1.
 Acts of de facto officers during their tenure are valid, binding, and effective.
EMERGENCY RECIT:
 Before Atty. Hubawel resigned from his position as IBP Governor for North Luzon, he took
carried out procedures to elect Atty. Chaguile as his successor. His actions were assailed by
Atty. Ubano who filed a motion of nullify the nomination and election of Atty Chaguile on the
grounds that there had to be a vacancy before an election for a successor to take over took
place and that the Board of Governors did not have the power to nominate a substitute, citing
section 44 of the IBP By-Laws. The board however, argued that the act was a tradition and
hence it is valid. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not valid for the By-Laws we clear and
no amount of tradition can change the By-Laws. Also, during Atty. Chaguile’s term as
Governor, Atty. Vicente Joyas was nominated and elected as Governor. Atty. Ubano, again,
filed a case to nullify him from holding the position, arguing that there was no valid election
because Atty Chaguile’s vote should not have been counted for he was not lawfully holding
office as an IBP Governor. As mentioned earlier, the courts ruled that Atty’ Chaguile’s holding
of office as IBP Governor was based on wrong grounds. However, because he had already
held office, he is therefore a de facto officer and the actions de facto officers are binding
despite the illegality of their basis for getting hold of their position. Atty Vincente Joyas’
election as a Governor is therefore valid.
FACTS:
2.
 The Case is a consolidation of two administrative matters: (1) A motion to invalidate or
have the Court declare as ultra vires the portion of the March 21, 2013 Resolution of
the IBP Board of Governers which approved the nomination of Atty. Lynda Chaguile as
replacement of IBP Governor for Northern Luzon, Denis B. Habawel. (2) A motion
seeking to nullify the May 22, 2013 election for IBP Executive Vice President (EVP)
and restrain Atty. Vincente M. Joyas from discharging the duties of IBP EVP/Acting
President. Atty. Ubanao, IBP Governor for Western Visayas, filled both cases.
 In the first administrative case, Atty. Ubano alleged two grounds to support his claim.
Firstly, there was no vacancy yet and hence there should not be a reason for a
replacement as found in Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws. Secondly, that the right to
elect the successor of a resigned IBP Governor is vested not the IBP Board of
Governors but in the delegates of the concerned region.
 In response to Atty Ubano’s claims, the IBP Board of Governors argued that it has
been an IBP tradition for successors of IBP governenors to be elected by the Board
and not the delegates. They even cited seven (7) precedents attesting to this tradition.
 In the second administrative case, Atty. Ubano assails election of Atty. Vicente M. Joya
as IBP Governor for Southern Luzon and as EVP of the IBP. Section 47 of the IBP By-
Laws requires that the EVP be elected by the concurrence of the votes of 5 IBP
governors. However, he claimed that Atty. Joya’s election was undue because Atty.
Chaguile’s vote should not have been counted, due to his position being allegedly
unlawfully held.
ISSUES:
1. WON Atty. Lynda Chaguile’s nomination and election by the IBP Board of Governors is
valid. – NO.
WON Atty. Vicente Joyas’ nomination and election by the IBP Board of Governor as
EVP of the IBP is valid. – YES.
NO. Indeed, it is not only erroneous but also absurd to insist that a vacancy must
actually and literally exist at the precise moment that a successor to an office is
identified. Where a vacancy is anticipated with reasonable certainty—as when a term is
ending or the effectivity of a resignation or a retirement is forthcoming—it is but
reasonable that those who are in a position to designate a replacement act promptly.
New officials are elected before the end of an incumbent’s term; replacements are
recruited (and even trained) ahead of an anticipated resignation or retirement. This is
necessary to ensure the smooth and effective functioning of an office. Between prompt
and lackadaisical action, the former is preferable. It is immaterial that there is an
identified successor-in-waiting so long as there are no simultaneous occupants of an
office. On the second ground, the third paragraph of Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws
clearly provides that "the delegates from the region shall by majority, elect a successor
from among the members of the Chapter to which the resigned governor is a member."
There is no ambiguity in this text. We are surprised that the IBP—an institution expected
to uphold the rule of law—has chosen to rely on "tradition" to validate its action. The IBP
Board of Governors arrogated unto itself a power which is vested in the delegates of the
concerned IBP region. This arrogation is a manifest violation of the clear and
unmistakable terms of the IBP’s By­Laws. We cannot countenance this. No amount of
previous practice or "tradition" can validate such a patently erroneous action. It is,
therefore, lear that Atty. Chaguile’s designation as IBP Governor for Northern Luzon is
tainted with irregularity, and therefore, invalid
YES. Nevertheless, Atty. Chaguile acted as and performed the functions of thr IBP
Governor for Northern Luzon. This is an accomplished fact which no amount of legal
abstraction can undo. It is in this context, with the backdrop of this consummated truth,
that the Supreme Court rule on the Administrative Matters before them. Given these
circumstances, the Supreme Court holds that Atty. Chaguile took on the role of IBP
Governor for Northern Luzon in a de facto capacity. De facto means “in point of fact”. To
speak of something as being de factois, thus; to say that it is actual or existing in fact as
opposed to existing by right or according to law, that is, de jure. Being factual though not
being founded on right or law, de fact is, therefore, illegitimate but in effect. Accordingly,
the official actions of Atty. Chaguile as de facto IBP Governor must be deemed valid,
binding, and effective, as though she were the officer validly appointed and qualified for
the office. It follows that her participation and vote in the election for IBP EVP are in
order.