This is a case on turncoatism or political opportunism. Cecil Digman was the Nacionalista candidate for vice-mayor of La Trinidad, Benguet in the election on January 30, 1980. On January 16 1980, his opponent, Marcelo U. Aguindadao, the official candidate of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition to disqualify Digman on the ground of turncoatism (pp. 31-33, Rollo).

At the hearing, Aguindadao presented evidence proving that Digman was disqualified to run for vice-mayor because on December 26, 1979 he had affiliated himself with the KBL (p. 34, Rollo) and attended the KBL caucus on that date; that Digman was the treasurer of the municipal KBL committee; that he wanted to run as KBL candidate for vice-mayor but lost to Cipriano Abalos and that after losing in the KBL convention, Digman had himself proclaimed as the official NP candidate for vice-mayor (See Exh. A to E).

Digman did not present any evidence. The Comelec in a telegram sent on January 31, 1980 to the chairman of the municipal board of canvassers directed that board to withhold the proclamation of Digman as the winning candidate for vice-mayor but the board disregarded that directive and on February 5, 1980 proclaimed Digman as the elected vice-mayor. He obtained 6,820 votes while Aguindadao received 3,811 votes. Digman took his oath of office.

The Comelec in its resolution of August 27, 1980 disqualified Digman for the position of vice-mayor on the ground of turncoatism and declared the votes cast in his favor as stray votes (p. 53, Rollo).

In its order of December 16, 1980, the Comelec denied Digman's motion for reconsideration, constituted itself as the Board of Canvassers and proclaimed Aguindadao as the duly elected vice-mayor of La Trinidad (p. 88, Rollo).

The said resolution and order of the Comelec were assailed by Digman in this petition for certiorari which he filed on January 26, 1981 and which is a continuation of a pre-proclamation controversy.

We hold that we should not disturb the Comelec's factual finding that Digman changed his party affiliation from KBL to NP within six months preceding the election and that, therefore, he was disqualified to run under the NP banner and his opponent should be the one proclaimed in his stead. That is a settled matter. (Sec. 10, Art. XII[C], Constitution; Sec. 7, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52; Presidential Decrees Nos. 1661 and 1161-A; Gabatan vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52381, January 25, 1980; Evasco vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52401, January 28, 1980; Sandalo vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52737, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 132; Santos vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52390, March 31, 1981, 103 SCRA 628; Ticzon vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52451, March 31, 1981, 103 SCRA 671; Geronimo vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52413, September 26, 1981, 107 SCRA 614.)

The case of Venezuela vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 53532, July 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 790, refers to a situation where Noli M. Venezuela filed on February 19, 1980 the petition to disqualify, on the ground of turncoatism, Artemio R. Saldivar, who was proclaimed mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan on February 6, 1980. The Comelec dismissed the petition. Venezuela assailed that dismissal order in this Court.

We dismissed Venezuela's certiorari petition with the directive that he could file before the proper court an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding. That ruling is not appropriate for this case which, as already stated, involves a pre-proclamation controversy on the issue of turncoatism and where the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed the petitioner in defiance of the Comelec's directive to withhold his proclamation as vice-mayor.

WHEREFORE, Digman's petition is dismissed with costs against him.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J. and Vasquez, J., in the result.
Teehankee and Abad Santos, JJ., see dissent below.
De Castro, J., see concurring.

---

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

I dissent. Partly for the reasons stated in the dissent of Justice Teehankee, I vote to grant the petition. Moreover, I do not think that a hearing is necessary. After Digman had been proclaimed as vice-mayor of La Trinidad, Benguet, and had qualified for the office, the remedy against Digman is an election protest or quo warranto proceedings.

---

DE CASTRO, J.:

This separate opinion is only to point out that the procedure indicated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Teehankee based on the earlier rulings cited by him^[1] (assuming they are applicable), would seem to me, on giving the matter deeper thought, as striking a discordant note to what has been said in praise of the on-going reorganization of the judiciary whose primordial aim is the fast and quick disposition of cases, and with the least expense.

Under the procedure suggested, a new case has to be brought before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) with same issue raised in the case filed with the COMELEC before the election, and decided by it before proclamation on January 31, 1980. It is almost a certainty that the decision of the Regional Trial Court would be appealed to the COMELEC which having already passed upon the very same issue, may predictably merely reiterate the conclusion it has reached, at least prima facie, as early as January 31, 1980 when it sent a telegraphic order to the Board of Canvassers to withhold the proclamation of Digman, who nevertheless was proclaimed and allowed to take oath on February 5, 1980, in violation of the COMELEC's order.

The extended Resolution, it is true, was released only on August 27, 1980 in favor of the respondent. This is obviously because the case involved only the position of Vice Mayor, and it must have been given lesser priority to many other cases involving higher and more important positions. Verily, petitioner would be occupying the position possibly most of the entire term, considering that from the filing of the action in the Regional Trial Court, up to a final decision which may be obtained only after a petition for review shall be decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the herein respondent, as the majority opinion would unmistakably indicate, not only months but years shall have lapsed.

Certainly, a procedure productive of such undesirable effects does not commend itself for approval, specially in the light of the objective so much stressed by the recent judiciary reorganization which affects not only judicial but also quasi-judicial bodies. The obnoxious result where the lawfully qualified candidate would be deprived of his right to the office, the long long while that petitioner would be occupying the position illegally, assuredly and by all means, must be avoided. The majority opinion would most laudably prevent such a result, reason for which, I give my full concurrence to said opinion.

---

^[1] Venezuela vs. Comelec, 98 SCRA 790; Disini vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52502, December 30, 1982.

---