Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 306 views

    Pamil V Teleron

    Uploaded by

    Carlo Mercado
    This case involved a quo warranto suit challenging the eligibility of Fr. Margarito R. Gonzaga to serve as the elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. The petitioner cited Section 2715 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which prohibited ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. The Court of First Instance ruled that the Election Code of 1971 implicitly repealed Section 2715. The Supreme Court decision was not decisive, with seven justices voting to affirm the lower court and five voting to reverse. With no clear majority, the court had no choice but to grant the petition and reverse the lower court, declaring Gonzaga ineligible as mayor based on the rules of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pamil V Teleron

    Uploaded by

    Carlo Mercado
    306 views2 pages
    This case involved a quo warranto suit challenging the eligibility of Fr. Margarito R. Gonzaga to serve as the elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. The petitioner cited Section 2715 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which prohibited ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. The Court of First Instance ruled that the Election Code of 1971 implicitly repealed Section 2715. The Supreme Court decision was not decisive, with seven justices voting to affirm the lower court and five voting to reverse. With no clear majority, the court had no choice but to grant the petition and reverse the lower court, declaring Gonzaga ineligible as mayor based on the rules of court.

    Original Description:

    Full Case

    Original Title

    Pamil v Teleron

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a quo warranto suit challenging the eligibility of Fr. Margarito R. Gonzaga to serve as the elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. The petitioner cited Section 2715 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which prohibited ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. The Court of First Instance ruled that the Election Code of 1971 implicitly repealed Section 2715. The Supreme Court decision was not decisive, with seven justices voting to affirm the lower court and five voting to reverse. With no clear majority, the court had no choice but to grant the petition and reverse the lower court, declaring Gonzaga ineligible as mayor based on the rules of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    306 views2 pages

    Pamil V Teleron

    Uploaded by

    Carlo Mercado
    This case involved a quo warranto suit challenging the eligibility of Fr. Margarito R. Gonzaga to serve as the elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol. The petitioner cited Section 2715 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which prohibited ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. The Court of First Instance ruled that the Election Code of 1971 implicitly repealed Section 2715. The Supreme Court decision was not decisive, with seven justices voting to affirm the lower court and five voting to reverse. With no clear majority, the court had no choice but to grant the petition and reverse the lower court, declaring Gonzaga ineligible as mayor based on the rules of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Pamil v Teleron G.R. No.

    L-34854 November 20, 1978


    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.
    Ponente
    Fernando, J. **
    Motion
    Motion for certiorari to review CFI decision.
    Facts
    Fr. Margarito R. Gonzaga was elected municipal mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol and was
    proclaimed the same.
    Petitioner, also an aspirant for the same position, filed a quo warranto suit in Bohol CFI.
    P cites Revised Administrative Code Section 2715 (1917): in no case shall there be elected
    or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics . . .
    CFI ruled that Election code of 1971 implicitly repealed RAC 2715 rendering it ineffective,
    thus affirming legitimacy of Gonzagas claim as mayor.
    Issue
    WON RAC Sec. 2715 is still in effect/operative.
    Held
    Yes. Petitioner granted certiorari and CFI decision reversed
    Tribunal vote is INDECISIVE. Seven justices voted to affirm CFI decision (that RA 2175 is
    ineffective) while five voted to reverse CFI decision (that RAC Sec. 2715 is effective).
    Neither side has enough votes for a majority (At least 8 is needed).
    Because of this, the Tribunal has no choice but to affirm the petition (thereby reversing CFI
    decision), and to declare Gonzaga ineligible as mayor. (See Rules of Court, Rule 56, Section
    11)
    Ratio:
    Constitutional objections to RAC Sec. 2715 (1917)
    -1935 and 1973 Constitutions explicitly state: No religious test shall be required for the
    exercise of civil and political rights.
    - Laws shall remain operative unless inconsistent with this Constitution (Art XVII, Sec. 7)
    - RAC Sec. 2715 is a religious test and thus inconsistent with Constitution
    Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

    Opinions
    Castro, C.J, concur
    RAC Sec. 2715 has not been superseded nor repealed, thus the law applicable to the case at
    hand.
    Teehankee, J. dissent
    Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 is law applicable to the case at hand, impliedly repealing RAC
    Sec. 2715, as the latter is a comprehensive law governing elections.
    By way of obiter dictum, RAC Sec. 2715 is also inoperative as it is inconsistent with
    Constitution regarding separation of Church and State (1973 Cons, Art. XV, Sec.15) and
    religious test (Art IV, Sec 8)
    Barredo, J. concur
    No contradiction with RAC Sec. 2715 and the freedom of religion section in Constitution
    Makasiar, J. concur
    Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 does not implicitly repeal RAC Sec. 2715.
    Notwithstanding, RAC Sec. 2715 is has no inconsistency with religious tests and even is
    contrary to separation of Church and State
    Antonio, J. concur
    Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 does not implicitly repeal RAC Sec. 2715.
    Separation of Church and state is more relevant section in Constitution to the case at bar.
    Munoz-Palma, J. dissent
    Concur with J. Teehankee and disagrees with held ruling.
    Aqiuno, J. concur
    Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 does not implicitly repeal RAC Sec. 2715.
    **Note: Those in blue voted to reverse decision, those in red voted to affirm it.

    You might also like