MILAGROS E.

AMORES, Petitioner,
vs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and EMMANUEL JOEL
J. VILLANUEVA,Respondents.
Via this petition for certiorari, Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) challenges the
Decision of May 1, !""# and Resol$tion %o. "#&1'" of A$g$st (, !""# of the )o$se
of Representatives Electoral *ri+$nal (p$+lic respondent), ,hich respectively
dismissed petitioner-s Petition for .$o /arranto 0$estioning the legality of the
ass$mption of o1ce of Emman$el 2oel 2. Villan$eva (private respondent) as
representative of the party&list organi3ation 4iti3ens- 5attle Against 4orr$ption
(465A4) in the )o$se of Representatives, and denied petitioner-s Motion for
Reconsideration.
6n her Petition for .$o /arranto
1
see7ing the o$ster of private respondent,
petitioner alleged that, among other things, private respondent ass$med o1ce
,itho$t a formal proclamation iss$ed +y the 4ommission on Elections (48ME9E4):
he ,as dis0$ali;ed to +e a nominee of the yo$th sector of 465A4 since, at the time
of the ;ling of his certi;cates of nomination and acceptance, he ,as already '1
years old or +eyond the age limit of '" p$rs$ant to <ection # of Rep$+lic Act (RA)
%o. =#1, other,ise 7no,n as the Party&9ist <ystem Act: and his change of
a1liation from 465A4-s yo$th sector to its overseas >ilipino ,or7ers and their
families sector ,as not e?ected at least si@ months prior to the May 1, !""=
elections so as to +e 0$ali;ed to represent the ne, sector $nder <ection 1A of RA
%o. =#1.
%ot having ;led his Ans,er despite d$e notice, private respondent ,as deemed to
have entered a general denial p$rs$ant to p$+lic respondent-s R$les.
!
As earlier reBected, p$+lic respondent, +y Decision of May 1, !""#,
'
dismissed
petitioner-s Petition for .$o /arranto, ;nding that 465A4 ,as among the party&list
organi3ations ,hich the 48ME9E4 had partially proclaimed as entitled to at least
one seat in the )o$se of Representatives thro$gh %ational 5oard of 4anvassers
(%54) Resol$tion %o. "=&(" dated 2$ly #, !""=. 6t also fo$nd the petition ,hich ,as
;led on 8cto+er 1=, !""= to +e o$t of time, the reglementary period +eing 1" days
from private respondent-s proclamation.
Respecting the age 0$ali;cation for yo$th sectoral nominees $nder <ection # of RA
%o. =#1, p$+lic respondent held that it applied only to those nominated as s$ch
d$ring the ;rst three congressional terms after the rati;cation of the 4onstit$tion or
$ntil 1##C, $nless a sectoral party is thereafter registered e@cl$sively as
representing the yo$th sector, ,hich 465A4, a m$lti&sectoral organi3ation, is not.
6n the matter of private respondent-s shift of a1liation from 465A4-s yo$th sector to
its overseas >ilipino ,or7ers and their families sector, p$+lic respondent held that
<ection 1A of RA %o. =#1 did not apply as there ,as no res$ltant change in party&
list a1liation.
)er Motion for Reconsideration having +een denied +y Resol$tion %o. "#&1'" dated
A$g$st (, !""#,

petitioner ;led the present Petition for 4ertiorari.

A
Petitioner contends that, among other things, p$+lic respondent created distinctions
in the application of <ections # and 1A of RA %o. =#1 that are not fo$nd in the
s$+Dect provisions, fostering interpretations at ,ar ,ith e0$al protection of the la,s:
and %54 Resol$tion %o. "=&(", ,hich ,as a partial proclamation of ,inning party&list
organi3ations, ,as not eno$gh +asis for private respondent to ass$me o1ce on 2$ly
1", !""=, especially considering that he admitted receiving his o,n 4erti;cate of
Proclamation only on Decem+er 1', !""=.
6n his 4omment,
(
private respondent avers in the main that petitioner has not
s$+stantiated her claims of grave a+$se of discretion against p$+lic respondent:
and that he +ecame a mem+er of the overseas >ilipinos and their families sector
years +efore the !""= elections.
6t +ears noting that the term of o1ce of party&list representatives elected in the
May, !""= elections ,ill e@pire on 2$ne '", !"1". /hile the petition has, th$s,
+ecome moot and academic, rendering of a decision on the merits in this case
,o$ld still +e of practical val$e.
=
*he 4o$rt adopts the iss$es framed +y p$+lic respondent, to ,itE (1) ,hether
petitioner-s Petition for .$o /arranto ,as dismissi+le for having +een ;led
$nseasona+ly: and (!) ,hether <ections # and 1A of RA %o. =#1 apply to private
respondent.
8n the ;rst iss$e, the 4o$rt ;nds that p$+lic respondent committed grave a+$se of
discretion in considering petitioner-s Petition for .$o /arranto ;led o$t of time. 6ts
co$nting of the 1"&day reglementary period provided in its R$les
C
from the iss$ance
of %54 Resol$tion %o. "=&(" on 2$ly #, !""= is erroneo$s.
*o +e s$re, ,hile %54 Resol$tion %o. "=&(" partially proclaimed 465A4 as a ,inner in
the May, !""= elections, along ,ith other party&list organi3ations,
#
it ,as +y no
meas$re a proclamation of private respondent himself as re0$ired +y <ection 1' of
RA %o. =#1.
<ection 1'. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. Party&list representatives
shall +e proclaimed +y the 48ME9E4 +ased on the list of names s$+mitted +y the
respective parties, organi3ations, or coalitions to the 48ME9E4 according to their
ran7ing in said list.
A* A99 EVE%*<, this 4o$rt set aside %54 Resol$tion %o. "=&(" in 5arangay
Association for %ational Advancement and *ransparency v. 48ME9E4
1"
after
revisiting the form$la for allocation of additional seats to party&list organi3ations.
4onsidering, ho,ever, that the records do not disclose the e@act date of private
respondent-s proclamation, the 4o$rt overloo7s the technicality of timeliness and
r$les on the merits. Alternatively, since petitioner-s challenge goes into private
respondent-s 0$ali;cations, it may +e ;led at anytime d$ring his term.
.$ali;cations for p$+lic o1ce are contin$ing re0$irements and m$st +e possessed
not only at the time of appointment or election or ass$mption of o1ce +$t d$ring
the o1cerFs entire ten$re. 8nce any of the re0$ired 0$ali;cations is lost, his title
may +e seasona+ly challenged.
11
8n the second and more s$+stantial iss$e, the 4o$rt shall ;rst disc$ss the age
re0$irement for yo$th sector nominees $nder <ection # of RA %o. =#1 readingE
<ection #. Qualifcations of Party-List Nominees. %o person shall +e nominated as
party&list representative $nless he is a nat$ral&+orn citi3en of the Philippines, a
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one
(1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, a+le to read and ,rite, a
+ona ;de mem+er of the party or organi3ation ,hich he see7s to represent for at
least ninety (#") days preceding the day of the election, and is at least t,enty&;ve
(!A) years of age on the day of the election.
6n case of a nominee of the yo$th sector, he m$st at least +e t,enty&;ve (!A)
+$t not more than thirty ('") years of age on the day of the election. Any yo$th
sectoral representative ,ho attains the age of thirty ('") d$ring his term shall +e
allo,ed to contin$e in o1ce $ntil the e@piration of his term. (Emphasis and
$nderscoring s$pplied.)
*he 4o$rt ;nds no te@t$al s$pport for p$+lic respondent-s interpretation that
<ection # applied only to those nominated d$ring the ;rst three congressional terms
after the rati;cation of the 4onstit$tion or $ntil 1##C, $nless a sectoral party is
thereafter registered e@cl$sively as representing the yo$th sector.
A cardinal r$le in stat$tory constr$ction is that ,hen the la, is clear and free from
any do$+t or am+ig$ity, there is no room for constr$ction or interpretation. *here is
only room for application.
1!
As the la, states in $ne0$ivocal terms that a nominee of the yo$th sector m$st at
least +e t,enty&;ve (!A) +$t not more than thirty ('") years of age on the day of
the election, so it m$st +e that a candidate ,ho is more than '" on election day is
not 0$ali;ed to +e a yo$th sector nominee. <ince this mandate is contained in RA
%o. =#1, the Party&9ist <ystem Act, it covers A99 yo$th sector nominees vying for
party&list representative seats.
As petitioner points o$t, RA %o. =#1 ,as enacted only in March, 1##A. *here is th$s
no reason to apply <ection # thereof only to yo$th sector nominees nominated
d$ring the ;rst three congressional terms after the rati;cation of the 4onstit$tion in
1#C=. Gnder this interpretation, the last elections ,here <ection # applied ,ere held
in May, 1##A or t,o months after the la, ,as enacted. *his is certainly not so$nd
legislative intent, and co$ld not have +een the o+Dective of RA %o. =#1.
*here is li7e,ise no rhyme or reason in p$+lic respondent-s ratiocination that after
the third congressional term from the rati;cation of the 4onstit$tion, ,hich e@pired
in 1##C, <ection # of RA %o. =#1 ,o$ld apply only to sectoral parties registered
e@cl$sively as representing the yo$th sector. *his distinction is no,here fo$nd in the
la,. G+i le@ non disting$it nec nos disting$ire de+em$s. /hen the la, does not
disting$ish, ,e m$st not disting$ish.
1'
Respecting <ection 1A of RA %o. =#1, the 4o$rt fails to ;nd even an iota of te@t$al
s$pport for p$+lic respondent-s ratiocination that the provision did not apply to
private respondent-s shift of a1liation from 465A4-s yo$th sector to its overseas
>ilipino ,or7ers and their families sector as there ,as no res$ltant change in party&
list a1liation. <ection 1A readsE
<ection 1A. Change of Aliation! "#ect. Any elected party&list representative ,ho
changes his political party or sectoral a1liation d$ring his term of o1ce shall forfeit
his seatE Provided, *hat if he changes his political party orsectoral a1liation ,ithin
si@ (() months +efore an election, he shall not +e eligi+le for nomination as party&list
representative $nder his ne, party or organi3ation. (emphasis and $nderscoring
s$pplied.)
/hat is clear is that the ,ording of <ection 1A covers changes in +oth political party
and sectoral a1liation. And the latter may occ$r ,ithin the same party since m$lti&
sectoral party&list organi3ations are 0$ali;ed to participate in the Philippine party&
list system. )ence, a nominee ,ho changes his sectoral a1liation ,ithin the same
party ,ill only +e eligi+le for nomination $nder the ne, sectoral a1liation if the
change has +een e?ected at least si@ months +efore the elections. Again, since the
stat$te is clear and free from am+ig$ity, it m$st +e given its literal meaning and
applied ,itho$t attempted interpretation. *his is the plain meaning r$le or ver+a
legis, as e@pressed in the ma@im inde@ animi sermo or speech is the inde@ of
intention.
1
6t is, therefore, +eyond cavil that <ections # and 1A of RA %o. =#1 apply to private
respondent.
*he 4o$rt ;nds that private respondent ,as not 0$ali;ed to +e a nominee of either
the yo$th sector or the overseas >ilipino ,or7ers and their families sector in the
May, !""= elections.
*he records disclose that private respondent ,as already more than '" years of age
in May, !""=, it +eing stip$lated that he ,as +orn in A$g$st, 1#=A.
1A
Moreover, he
did not change his sectoral a1liation at least si@ months +efore May, !""=, p$+lic
respondent itself having fo$nd that he shifted to 465A4-s overseas >ilipino ,or7ers
and their families sector only on March 1=, !""=.
1(
$avvphi$
*hat private respondent is the ;rst nominee of 465A4, ,hose victory ,as later
$pheld, is of no moment. A party&list organi3ation-s ran7ing of its nominees is a
mere indication of preference, their 0$ali;cations according to la, are a di?erent
matter.
6t not +eing contested, ho,ever, that private respondent ,as event$ally proclaimed
as a party&list representative of 465A4 and rendered services as s$ch, he is entitled
to 7eep the compensation and emol$ments provided +y la, for the position $ntil he
is properly declared ineligi+le to hold the same.
1=
/)ERE>8RE, the petition is HRA%*ED. *he Decision dated May 1, !""# and
Resol$tion %o. "#&1'" dated A$g$st (, !""# of the )o$se of Representatives
Electoral *ri+$nal are <E* A<6DE. Emman$el 2oel 2. Villan$eva is declared ineligi+le
to hold o1ce as a mem+er of the )o$se of Representatives representing the party&
list organi3ation 465A4.
I I I
KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY
CREDIT UNION, INC., petitioner&appellant,
vs.
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, respondent appellee.
6n this mandam$s petition dismissed +y the lo,er co$rt, petitioner&appellant ,o$ld
see7 a reversal of s$ch decision relying on ,hat it considered to +e a right granted
+y <ection (! of the Rep$+lic Act %o. !"!', more speci;cally the ;rst t,o
paragraphs thereofE J... (1) A mem+er of a cooperative may, not,ithstanding the
provisions of e@isting la,s, e@ec$te an agreement in favor of the co&operative
a$thori3ing his employer to ded$ct from the salary or ,ages paya+le to him +y the
employer s$ch amo$nt as may +e speci;ed in the agreement and to pay the
amo$nt so ded$cted to the co&operative in satisfaction of any de+t or other demand
o,ing from the mem+er to the co&operative. (!) Gpon the e@emption of s$ch
agreement the employer shall if so re0$ired +y the co&operative +y a re0$est in
,riting and so long as s$ch de+t or other demand or any part of it remains $npaid,
ma7e the claimant and remit forth ,ith the amo$nt so ded$cted to the co&
operative.J
1
*o sho, that s$ch is f$tile, the appealed decision, as 0$oted in the +rief for
petitioner&appellant, stated the follo,ingE J*hen petitioner contends that $nder the
a+ove provisions of Rep. Act !"!', the loans granted +y credit $nion to its mem+ers
enDoy ;rst priority in the payroll collection from the respondentFs employeesF ,ages
and salaries. As can +e clearly seen, there is nothing in the provision of Rep. Act
!"!' hereina+ove 0$oted ,hich provides that o+ligation of la+orers and employees
paya+le to credit $nions shall enDoy ;rst priority in the ded$ction from the
employeesF ,ages and salaries. %he only e#ect of Rep. Act &'&( is to compel the
employer to )e)uct from the salaries or wages paya*le to mem*ers of the
employees+ cooperative cre)it unions the employees+ )e*ts to the union an) to pay
the same to the cre)it union. 6n other ,ords, if Rep. Act !"!' had +een enacted, the
employer co$ld not +e compelled to act as the collecting agent of the employeesF
credit $nion for the employeesF de+t to his credit $nion +$t to contend that the de+t
of a mem+er of the employees cooperative credit $nion as having ;rst priority in the
matter of ded$ction, is to ,rite something into the la, ,hich does not appear. ,n
other wor)s- the man)atory character of Rep. Act &'&( is only to compel the
employer to ma7e the ded$ction of the employeesF de+t from the latterFs salary and
t$rn this over to the employeesF credit $nion +$t this mandatory character does not
convert the credit $nionFs credit into a ;rst priority credit. 6f the legislative intent in
enacting pars. 1 and ! of <ec. (! of Rep. Act !"!' ,ere to give ;rst priority in the
matter of payments to the o+ligations of employees in favor of their credit $nions,
then, the la, ,o$ld have so e@pressly declared. *h$s, the e@press provisions of the
%e, 4ivil 4ode, Arts. !!1, !!! and !! sho, the legislative intent on preference
of credits.
2
<$ch an interpretation, as co$ld +e e@pected, fo$nd favor ,ith the respondent&
appellee, ,hich, in its +rief, s$ccinctly pointed o$t Jthat there is nothing in said
provision from ,hich it co$ld +e implied that it gives top priority to o+ligations of
the nat$re of that paya+le to petitioner, and that, therefore, respondent company,
in iss$ing the doc$ments 7no,n as E@hi+it J'J and E@hi+it JPJ, ,hich esta+lish the
order of priority of payment o$t of the salaries of the employees of respondent&
appellee, did not violate the a+ove&0$oted <ection (! of Rep$+lic Act !"!'. 6n
prom$lgating E@hi+it J'J, KandL E@hi+it JPJ respondent, in e?ect, implemented the
said provision of la,.

*his petition +eing one for mandam$s and the provision of la, relied $pon +eing
clear on its face, it ,o$ld appear that no favora+le action can +e ta7en on this
appeal. /e a1rm.
1. *he applica+le provision of Rep$+lic Act %o. !"!' 0$oted earlier, spea7s for itself.
*here is no am+ig$ity. As th$s ,orded, it ,as so applied. Petitioner&appellant cannot
therefore raise any valid o+Dection. >or the lo,er co$rt to vie, it other,ise ,o$ld
have +een to alter the la,. *hat cannot +e done +y the D$diciary. *hat is a f$nction
that properly appertains to the legislative +ranch. As ,as pointed o$t in .on/aga v.
Court of AppealsE
!
J6t has +een repeated time and time again that ,here the
stat$tory norm spea7s $ne0$ivocally, there is nothing for the co$rts to do e@cept to
apply it. *he la,, leaving no do$+t as to the scope of its operation, m$st +e o+eyed.
8$r decisions have consistently +orn to that e?ect.
"
.
!. 4learly, then, mandam$s does not lie. Petitioner&appellant ,as $na+le to sho, a
clear legal right. *he very la, on ,hich he ,o$ld +ase his action fails to s$pply any
+asis for this petition. A more rigoro$s analysis ,o$ld have prevented him from
instit$ting a a s$it of this character. 6n 0.R.1. 2usiness Corporation v. 3ontesa,
#
this
4o$rt held. JMan&dam$s is the proper remedy if it co$ld +e sho,n that there ,as
neglect on the part of a tri+$nal in the performance of an act, ,hich speci;cally the
la, enDoins as a d$ty or an $nla,f$l e@cl$sion of a party from the $se and
enDoyment of a right to ,hich he is entitled.
$
*he opinion contin$ed in this
,iseEJAccording to former 4hief 2$stice Moran,J only speci;c legal rights may +e
enforced +y mandam$s if they are clear and certain. 6f the legal rights are of the
petitioner are not ,ell de;ned, clear, and certain, the petition m$st +e dismissed. 6n
s$pport of the a+ove vie,, 4iu)a e Hi5os )e Crispulo 6amora v. 7right ,as cited. As
,as there categorically statedE J*his co$rt has held that it is f$ndamental that the
d$ties to +e enforced +y mandam$s m$st +e those ,hich are clear and enDoined +y
la, or +y reason of o1cial station, and that petitioner m$st have a clear, legal right
to the thing and that it m$st +e the legal d$ty of the defendant to perform the
re0$ired act.F As e@pressed +y the then 2$stice Recto in a s$+se0$ent opinionE J6t is
,ell esta+lish that only speci;c legal rights are enforcea+le +y mandam$s, that the
right so$ght to +e enforced m$st +e certain and clear, and that the ,rit not iss$e in
cases ,here the right is do$+tf$l.J *o the same e?ect is the form$lation of s$ch
doctrine +y former 2$stice 5arreraE J<tated other,ise, the ,rit never iss$es in
do$+tf$l cases. 6t neither confers po,ers nor imposes d$ties. 6t is simply a
command to e@ercise a po,er already possessed and to perform a d$ty already
imposed.J
%
<o it has +een since then.
&
*he latest reported case, Province. of
Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission,
1'
this co$rt spea7ing thro$gh 2$stice
4oncepcion 2r., reiterated s$ch a ,ell&settled doctrineE J6t has also +een held that it
is essential to the iss$ance of the ,rit of mandam$s that the plainti? sho$ld have a
clear legal right to the thing demanded, and it m$st +e the imperative d$ty of the
defendant to perform the act re0$ired. 6t never iss$es in do$+tf$l cases.
11
/)ERE>8RE, the appealed decision is a1rmed.
I I I