City of Pasig vs Comelec : 125646 : Synopsis/Syllabi

SYNOPSIS

On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that they be segregated from its mother Barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to be converted and separated into a distinct barangay to be known as Barangay Karangalan, the City Council of Pasig passed and approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating Barangay Karangalan in Pasig City. Plebiscite on the creation of said barangay was thereafter set for June 22, 1996. Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig similarly issued Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1996, creating Barangay Napico in Pasig City. Plebiscite for this purpose was set for March 15, 1997. Immediately upon learning of such ordinances, the Municipality of Cainta filed two (2) Petitions with the Commission on Elections calling its attention to a pending case before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal for the settlement of boundary disputes. The Municipality of Cainta claimed that the proposed barangays involve areas included in the boundary dispute subject of said pending case; hence, the scheduled plebiscite should be suspended or cancelled until after the said case shall have been finally decided by the court. The COMELEC accepted the position of the Municipality of Cainta and ordered the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan to be held in abeyance until after the court has settled with finality the boundary dispute involving the two municipalities. However, the COMELEC ruled differently in the other petition, dismissing the same for being moot since the creation of Barangay Napico was already ratified and approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite. Hence, these two (2) petitions by the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta.

A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries. Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only be an exercise in futility. The Court also would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays. Furthermore, the Court did not agree that merely because a plebiscite had already been held in the case of the proposed Barangay Napico, the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already been rendered moot and academic. The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled that the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and Municipality of Cainta by the RTC of Antipolo City. In the same vein, the plebiscite held to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside.

SYLLABUS

1. POLITICAL LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; PENDING BOUNDARY DISPUTE CASE BETWEEN TWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS PRESENTS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED BEFORE PLEBISCITE FOR CREATION OF BARANGAYS MAY BE HELD. - We agree with the position of the COMELEC that Civil Case No. 94-3 006 involving the boundary dispute between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig presents a prejudicial question which must first be decided before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed barangays may be held. The City of Pasig argues that there is no prejudicial question since the same contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not come into play where both cases are civil, as in the instant case. While this may be the general rule, this Court has held in Vidad v. RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. 42, that, in the interest of good order, we can very well suspend action on one case pending the final outcome of another case closely interrelated or linked to the first.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR.- In the case at bar, while the City of Pasig vigorously claims that the areas covered by the proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico are within its territory, it can not deny that portions of the same area are included in the boundary dispute case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo. Surely, whether the areas in controversy shall be decided as within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Cainta or the City of Pasig has material bearing to the creation of the proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico. Indeed, a requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries. Precisely because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case, until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only be an exercise in futility. Not only that, we would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of such barangays. Moreover, considering the expenses entailed in the holding of plebiscites, it is far more prudent to hold in abeyance the conduct of the same, pending final determination of whether or not the entire area of the proposed barangays are truly within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Pasig.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PLEBISCITE HELD TO RATIFY THE CREATION OF PROPOSED BARANGAY, DECLARED NULL AND VOID IN CASE AT BAR; REASON. - Neither do we agree that merely because a plebiscite had already been held in the case of the proposed Barangay Napico, the petition of the Municipality of Cainta has already been rendered moot and academic. The issues raised by the Municipality of Cainta in its petition before the COMELEC against the holding of the plebiscite for the creation of Barangay Napico are still pending determination before the Antipolo Regional Trial Court. In Tan v. Commission on Elections, we struck down the moot and academic argument as follows - “Considering that the legality of the plebiscite itself is challenged for non-compliance with constitutional requisites, the fact that such plebiscite had been held and a new province proclaimed and its officials appointed, the case before Us cannot truly be viewed as already moot and academic. Continuation of the existence of this newly proclaimed province which petitioners strongly profess to have been illegally born, deserves to be inquired into by this Tribunal so that, if indeed, illegality attaches to its creation, the commission of that error should not provide the very excuse for perpetration of such wrong. For this Court to yield to the respondents’ urging that, as there has been fait accompli, then this Court should passively accept and accede to the prevailing situation is an unacceptable suggestion. Dismissal of the instant petition, as respondents so propose is a proposition fraught with mischief. Respondents’ submission will create a dangerous precedent. Should this Court decline now to perform its duty of interpreting and indicating what the law is and should be, this might tempt again those who strut about in the corridors of power to recklessly and with ulterior motives, create, merge, divide and/or alter the boundaries of political subdivisions, either brazenly or stealthily, confident that this Court will abstain from entertaining future challenges to their acts if they manage to bring about a fait accompli.” Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta by the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. In the same vein, the plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Berlin A. Castillo for City of Pasig.

Virgilio J. Yparraguirre for Municipality of Cainta.

The Solicitor General for COMELEC.