Case No. 30 : Pamil vs.

Teleron 86 SCRA 413

Case Title : FORTUNATO R. PAMIL, petitioner-appellant, vs. HONORABLE

VICTORINO C. TELERON, as Judge of the Court of First Instance

of Bohol, Branch III, and REV. FR. MARGARITO R. GONZAGA,
respondents-appellees.

Case Nature : PETITION for certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of First

Instance of Bohol. Teleron, J.

Docket Number : No. L-34854

Ponente : FERNANDO, CASTRO

Decision :

The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment a quo is reversed and set aside.
Respondent Gonzaga is ordered immediately to vacate the mayoralty of the municipality of
Albuquerque, Bohol, there being a failure to elect. No pronouncement as to costs.
WHEREFORE, I vote to deny this Petition for review and to affirm the decision of respondent
Judge.

FACTS:
The action was filed by petitioner (FORTUNATO R. PAMIL) , losing candidate invoking
the law’s ban in order to disqualify respondent ( REV. FR. MARGARITO R. GONZAGA) , a
priest who was elected to the position of municipal mayor.
Petitioner filed a quo waranto case against the latter. This is as per the 2175 Revised
Administrative Code (RAC) that states: “In no case there shall be elected/appointed to a
municipal office ecclesiasts, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or
compensation from provincial/national funds, or contractors for public works of the municipality.”
The lower court merely sided with the Comelec’s ruling in an earlier case filed by
petitioner for the same purpose of disqualifying respondent and dismissed the case below
upholding respondent’s defense that Election Law which ban in Sec. 2175 of the Administrative
Code against ecclesiastics repealed by 1971.
The two challenged or alleged conflicting legal provisions are:

Section 23 of the Election Code of 1971. Candidate holding appointive office or

position. Every person holding a public appointive office or position, including active
 members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and every officer or employee in
government-owned or controlled corporations, shall ipso facto cease in his office or
position on the date he files his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That the filing of a
certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities
which he may have incurred (Election Code of 1971, emphasis supplied).

Section. 2175. Persons ineligible to municipal office. — In no case shall there be

elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastic, soldiers in active service, persons
receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds, or contractors for
public works of the municipality (Revised Administrative Code, emphasis supplied).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RAC is not in effect or already repealed, thereby making the
appointment of Fr. Gonzaga in mayor’s position as a priest, constitutional.
HELD:
Decision is indecisive, the said law, in the deliberations of the court, failed to obtain
the majority vote of eight (8) which is needed for this law to be binding upon the parties in this
case. For this, the petition must be granted, and the decision of the lower court reversed and set
aside. Fr. Gonzaga is hereby ordered to vacate the mayoralty position. It is also pointed out that
how can one who swore to serve the Church’s interest above all be in duty to enforce state
policies which at times may conflict with church tenets. This is in violation of the separation of
the church and state. The Revised Administrative Code still stands because there is no implied
repeal.
Dissenting Opinion:
J. Teehankee – The Comelec ruled that soldiers in active service and persons receiving
salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds “are obviously now allowed to run for
a public elective office because under Sec. 23 of the Election Code of 1971 ‘every person
holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces’
shall ipso facto cease in their office or position on the date they file their certificates of
candidacy. This implies that they are no longer disqualified from running for an elective office.”
The Comelec further ruled that as to the two remaining categories formerly banned under the
Revised Administrative Code, “ecclesiastics and contractors for public works of the municipality
are allowed to run for municipal elective offices under the maxim, ‘Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterius’, they being not included in the enumeration of persons ineligible under the New
Election Code. The rule is that all persons possessing the necessary qualifications, except
those expressly disqualified by the election code, are eligible to run for public office.