A procedural misstep, not the substance of the allegations, has ended a bid to reverse the Commission on Elections’ decision absolving Sen. Francis Escudero of wrongdoing tied to a P30-million campaign contribution from a firm that does government work.
The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, threw out the petition for review because it was the incorrect legal vehicle for contesting the poll body’s action. That disposition was contained in a resolution dated June 3, 2026, according to a notice bearing the signature of Clerk of Court Marife M. Lombibao-Cuevas.
“The Court resolved to DISMISS the Petition for Review dated December 23, 2025, filed by the petitioner, for being the wrong remedy,” the resolution read.
John Barry Tayam, a schoolteacher from Las Piñas City, had lodged the challenge against Escudero and the Comelec’s Political Finance and Affairs Department (PFAD). At the heart of his complaint was the treatment of Lawrence Lubiano, who heads Centerways Construction and Development Inc. as its president. Tayam contended that Lubiano’s status as majority owner and top officer made it improper to regard him as fully distinct from the corporation, given the election law’s bar on campaign money from government contractors.
That argument ran counter to what PFAD had already concluded. The department had shut down its inquiry into both Escudero and Lubiano, determining that no provision of the Omnibus Election Code had been breached. Central to its reasoning was the distinction it drew between the businessman and his company as separate legal persons, with the P30-million sum classified as a personal gift from Lubiano rather than a corporate one. The donation dated back to Escudero’s run for the Senate in 2022.
Tayam’s case had not always faced rejection. The justices had previously granted his motion for leave to file and admit the petition, clearing the way for the matter to be taken up. What changed in June was the Court’s determination that the form of his appeal could not stand.
Notably, the tribunal left untouched the core question Tayam raised about whether the contribution violated the law. Its ruling reached only the procedural defect, stopping short of any finding on the legality of the money that changed hands.
