FACTS:

Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) filed a Petition for Quo Warranto questioning the legality of Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva's (private respondent) assumption of office as the representative of the party-list organization Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) in the House of Representatives. Petitioner alleged that private respondent assumed office without a formal proclamation issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Petitioner also claimed that private respondent was disqualified to be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC because he was already 31 years old at the time of filing his certificates of nomination. Petitioner further alleged that private respondent's change of affiliation from the youth sector to the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector was not done at least six months prior to the elections, as required by law.

Private respondent failed to file an Answer and was deemed to have entered a general denial. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (public respondent) dismissed petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto, finding that CIBAC had been partially proclaimed as entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives by the COMELEC. The tribunal also ruled that the petition was filed out of time. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. Petitioner argued that the public respondent created distinctions in the application of relevant provisions that are inconsistent with equal protection of the laws. Private respondent countered that petitioner failed to substantiate her claims of grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the term of office of party-list representatives elected in the May 2007 elections had already expired, but decided to render a decision on the merits for practical value.

The Court identified two issues: (1) whether petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto was filed within the prescribed period; and (2) whether the relevant provisions applied to private respondent. The Court held that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion by considering the petition as filed out of time. It was found that the proclamation of CIBAC as a winner does not amount to the proclamation of private respondent himself. The Court also noted that the exact date of private respondent's proclamation was not specified in the records.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto was dismissible for having been filed unseasonably.

2. Whether Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to private respondent.

RULING:

1. The Court finds that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in considering petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto filed out of time. The counting of the 10-day reglementary period provided in its Rules from the issuance of NBC Resolution No. 07-60 on July 9, 2007 is erroneous. NBC Resolution No. 07-60, which partially proclaimed CIBAC and other party-list organizations as winners in the May 2007 elections, was not the proper proclamation required by Section 13 of RA No. 7941. Therefore, the petition was not unseasonably filed.

PRINCIPLES:

• The reglementary period for filing a petition questioning the legality of assumption of office of a party-list representative is 10 days from the proper proclamation of the representative.

• A partial proclamation by the National Board of Canvassers is not sufficient to allow a party-list representative to assume office. The proper proclamation should be issued by the Commission on Elections.