Assoc. of Flood Victims and Hernandez v. COMELEC (2014)
Assoc. of Flood Victims and Hernandez v. COMELEC (2014)
Assoc. of Flood Victims and Hernandez v. COMELEC (2014)
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 203775, August 05, 2014 ]
ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD VICTIMS AND JAIME AGUILAR
HERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
ALAY BUHAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC., AND
WESLIE TING GATCHALIAN, RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, ACTING C.J.:
The Case
This is a Petition for Certiorari and/or Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the Minute Resolution No. 120859 dated 2 October 2012 of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 120859, among others,
(1) confirmed the recomputation of the allocation of seats of the PartyList System of
Representation in the House of Representatives in the 10 May 2010 automated national
and local elections, (2) proclaimed Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation,
Inc. (AlayBuhay) PartyList as a winning partylist group in the 10 May 2010 elections,
and (3) declared the first nominee [Weslie T. Gatchalian] of Alay Buhay PartyList as its
PartyList Representative in the House of Representatives.
The Facts
On 28 August 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed COMELEC Resolution SPP 10013,
dated 11 October 2011, cancelling the certificate of registration of the Alliance of
Barangay Concerns (ABC) PartyList which won in the partylist elections in the 2010
national elections. The disqualification of the ABC PartyList resulted in the re
computation of the partylist allocations in the House of Representatives, in which the
COMELEC followed the formula outlined in the case of Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on Elections.[1]
The COMELEC then issued Minute Resolution No. 120859, in which it resolved:
1. TO GRANT the September 14, 2012 Urgent Motion for Proclamation of
Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay) Party
List;
2. TO DENY the September 20, 2012 Very Very Urgent ExParte Motion of
Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens of the Philippines, Inc. (Senior
Citizens) PartyList;
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57294 1/6
8/9/2016 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
3. TO NOTE the September 24, 2012 Opposition to Senior Citizens Party
List’s “Very Very Urgent ExParte Motion” of Alay Buhay Community
Development Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay) PartyList;
4. TO CONFIRM the herein RECOMPUTATION OF THE ALLOCATION OF
SEATS of the PartyList System of Representation in the House of
Representatives in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local
Elections;
5. TO PROCLAIM Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc.
(Alay Buhay) PartyList as a winning partylist group in the PartyList
System of Representation in the House of Representatives in the May 10,
2010 Automated National and Local Elections; and
6. TO DECLARE the First (1st) NOMINEE of Alay Buhay Community
Development Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay) PartyList, as the FIRST (1st)
SITTING REPRESENTATIVE in the PartyList System of Representation in the
House of Representatives in accordance with the Order of Nominees per the
List appearing in its March 17, 2010 Certificate of Nomination.[2]
On 25 October 2012, petitioners Association of Flood Victims and Jaime Aguilar
Hernandez (Hernandez) filed with this Court a special civil action for certiorari and/or
mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners assert that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued Minute Resolution No. 120859.
Furthermore, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel
publication of the COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 120859.
The Issues
The issues raised in this case are: (1) whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing Minute Resolution No. 120859, and (2) whether the COMELEC may
be compelled through mandamus to publish Minute Resolution No. 120859.
The Ruling of the Court
We dismiss the petition.
Petitioners do not have legal capacity to sue. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 3 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure read:
defendant.
SECTION 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest.
Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3, only natural or juridical persons,or entities authorized
by law may be parties in a civil action, which must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest. Article 44 of the Civil Code lists the juridical persons
with capacity to sue, thus:
Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or
purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they
have been constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or
purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and
distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member. (Emphasis
supplied)
Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court mandates that “[f]acts showing the capacity of a
party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a
party, must be averred.”
In their petition, it is stated that petitioner Association of Flood Victims “is a nonprofit
and nonpartisan organization in the process of formal incorporation, the primary
purpose of which is for the benefit of the common or general interest of many flood
victims who are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties,” and that
petitioner Hernandez “is a Tax Payer and the Lead Convenor of the Association of Flood
Victims.”[3] Clearly, petitioner Association of Flood Victims, which is still in the process
of incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical person or an entity authorized by law,
which can be a party to a civil action.[4]
Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is an unincorporated association not endowed
with a distinct personality of its own. An unincorporated association, in the absence of
an enabling law, has no juridical personality and thus, cannot sue in the name of the
association.[5] Such unincorporated association is not a legal entity distinct from its
members. If an association, like petitioner Association of Flood Victims, has no juridical
personality, then all members of the association must be made parties in the civil
action.[6] In this case, other than his bare allegation that he is the lead convenor of the
Association of Flood Victims, petitioner Hernandez showed no proof that he was
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57294 3/6
8/9/2016 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
authorized by said association. Aside from petitioner Hernandez, no other member was
made signatory to the petition. Only petitioner Hernandez signed the Verification and
Sworn Certification Against Forum Shopping,[7] stating that he caused the preparation
of the petition. There was no accompanying document showing that the other members
of the Association of Flood Victims authorized petitioner Hernandez to represent them
and the association in the petition.
In Dueñas v. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association,[8] the Court held that the
Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association (SSHA), which was an unincorporated
association, lacks capacity to sue in its own name, and that the members of the
association cannot represent the association without valid authority, thus:
There is merit in petitioner's contention. Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the
Revised Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Article 44 of the Civil Code
enumerates the various classes of juridical persons. Under said Article, an
association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality
separate and distinct from that of its members. The records of the present
case are bare of any showing by SSHA that it is an association duly
organized under Philippine law. It was thus error for the HLURBNCR Office
to give due course to the complaint in HLURB Case No. REM0702979821,
given SSHA's lack of capacity to sue in its own name. Nor was it proper for
said agency to treat the complaint as a suit by all the parties who signed and
verified the complaint. The members cannot represent their association in
any suit without valid and legal authority. Neither can their signatures confer
on the association any legal capacity to sue. Nor will the fact that SSHA
belongs to the Federation of Valenzuela Homeowners Association, Inc.,
suffice to endow SSHA with the personality and capacity to sue. Mere
allegations of membership in a federation are insufficient and
inconsequential. The federation itself has a separate juridical personality and
was not impleaded as a party in HLURB Case No. REM0702979821 nor in
this case. Neither was it shown that the federation was authorized to
represent SSHA. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or
the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the
legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
must be averred. Hence, for failing to show that it is a juridical entity,
endowed by law with capacity to bring suits in its own name, SSHA is devoid
of any legal capacity, whatsoever, to institute any action.[9]
More so in this case where there is no showing that petitioner Hernandez is validly
authorized to represent petitioner Association of Flood Victims.
Since petitioner Association of Flood Victims has no legal capacity to sue, petitioner
Hernandez, who is filing this petition as a representative of the Association of Flood
Victims, is likewise devoid of legal personality to bring an action in court. Neither can
petitioner Hernandez sue as a taxpayer because he failed to show that there was illegal
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57294 4/6
8/9/2016 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
expenditure of money raised by taxation[10] or that public funds are wasted through
the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.[11]
Besides, petitioners have no locus standi or legal standing. Locus standi or legal
standing is defined as:
x x x a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental act
that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a material interest, an
interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest
in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist of the
question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[12]
In this case, petitioners failed to allege personal or substantial interest in the
questioned governmental act which is the issuance of COMELEC Minute Resolution No.
120859, which confirmed the recomputation of the allocation of seats of the PartyList
System of Representation in the House of Representatives in the 10 May 2010
Automated National and Local Elections. Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is
not even a partylist candidate in the 10 May 2010 elections, and thus, could
not have been directly affected by COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 120859.
In view of our holding that petitioners do not have legal capacity to sue and have no
standing to file the present petition, we shall no longer discuss the issues raised in this
petition.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza, Reyes, PerlasBernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J., on leave. I certify that C.J. Sereno left her vote concurring with this
ponencia. J. Carpio**
Del Castillo, J., no part.
** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1743 dated 4 August 2014.
[1] 604 Phil. 131 (2009) (Decision) and 609 Phil. 751 (2009) (Resolution).
[2] Rollo, pp. 7172.
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57294 5/6
8/9/2016 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[3] Id. at 12. (Emphasis supplied).
[4] In the case of AntiChinese League v. Felix [77 Phil. 1012 (1947)], the Court held
that petitioner, which is a civic organization or association representing a group of
Filipino citizens, but does not constitute a juridical person or entity, cannot be a party in
the naturalization proceeding nor institute the action for mandamus since only natural
or juridical persons may be parties in either civil actions or special proceedings.
[5] Although an entity without juridical personality cannot sue under the name by which
it is commonly known, such entity may be sued under certain circumstances. This is
allowed under Section 15, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides
that:
SECTION 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. – When two
or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter
into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing
said entity must be revealed.
[6] 1 J. FERIA & M.C. NOCHE, CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED 222 (2001).
[7] Rollo, p. 44.
[8] G.R. No. 149417, 4 June 2001, 431 SCRA 76.
[9] Id. at 8687.
[10] Francisco, Jr. v. Hon. Fernando, 537 Phil. 391 (2006).
[11] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, 17 April 2013, 696
SCRA 861.
[12] Integrated Bar of the Phils. v. Hon. Zamora, 392 Phil. 618, 632633 (2000).
Source: Supreme Court ELibrary
This page was dynamically generated
by the ELibrary Content Management System (ELibCMS)
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57294 6/6