G.R. Nos. L-55922-23. May 26, 1981
RUDY J. DE LEON, DANILO MAGNO, JUAN TINIO, ALFREDO LAMSON, JUAN OSTARES, CRISOLITO SABINO, ROSITA DE PAZ, FRANCISCO ALVAREZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE TEOFILO GUADIZ…
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
In this Petition for
Review on Certiorari, petitioners, who were the defeated candidates for
Vice-Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, respectively, seek a reversal of respondent Court’s
Order, dated March 27, 1980, which dismissed their Election Protest for alleged
failure, within the period given by the Court, to file their separate amended
protests and to pay the filing fees and cash deposits as required by Comelec Resolution No. 1451, as well as of the Orders of
May 16 and October 3, 1980 denying reconsideration.
On February 12, 1980,
petitioners filed a joint election protest contesting the positions of
Vice-Mayor and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch V, entitled
“Rudy de Leon, et als. vs.
Jovenal Aldaba, et als.,” docketed as Election Case No. 3. They anchored their contest on alleged
failure of election, commission of election day
frauds, and turncoatism. Upon filing of the protest, they paid the
corresponding docket fee and legal research fund fee.
On February
26, 1980, the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) promulgated
Resolution No. 1451 known as the “Procedural Rules for Election Contests
in the Courts of First Instance” involving elective municipal and
municipal district offices.
The provisions thereof
pertinent to this case read:
“Sec. 2. Filing of election contests. – x x x Each contest shall refer
exclusively to one office, but contests for offices of the sangguniang
bayan may be consolidated in one case.
x x x
“Sec. 6. Filing fee. – No contest shall be given due course without
the payment of a filing fee in the amount of one hundred pesos (100.00) for
each interest.
“Sec. 7. Cash deposit. – In a protest or a
counter-protest not requiring ballot revision, the protestant or the
counter-protestant, as the case may be, shall make a cash deposit in the amount
of two hundred pesos (P200.00); if a revision must be made, the cash deposit
shall be in the sum of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00). The amount shall be deposited with the Clerk
of Court within ten (10) days after being required by the Court to do so, and
shall be applied to the payment of all expenses incidental to such protest or
counter-protest. When the circumstances
so demand, additional cash deposits may be required. Failure to make the cash deposits herein
provided within the prescribed time limit shall result in the automatic
dismissal of the protest or counter-protest, as the case may be.” (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant thereto, on
February 28, 1980, respondent Court ordered the petitioners-protestants, within
ten days from receipt, to file amended protests separating the contest for
Vice-Mayor from that of the members of the Sangguniang
Bayan; to pay P100.00 each as filing
fee; and it appearing that a ballot revision was necessary, the protestant for
the position of Vice-Mayor was required to make a cash deposit of P1,000.00,
and the protestants for the positions of members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, who could remain consolidated in one position,
also to make a cash deposit of P1,000.00. This
Order was received by petitioners on March 4, 1980. They
had, therefore, up to March 14, 1980 within which to file amended protests, pay
the filing fees, and make the cash deposits.
On March
12, 1980,
petitioners-protestants moved for five days extension from March
14, 1980 within
which to comply. Encountering difficulty
in raising the necessary amounts, petitioners, on March 19, 1980, mailed their Motion for another extension
of seven days. (There
is a dispute as to whether this was, in fact, filed on March 19, or on March
21, 1980). On March 26, 1980,
petitioners again filed an Urgent Motion for an additional seven days
extension on the ground that their counsel was bed-ridden, which period would
have extended up to April 2, 1980. This
last Motion was unacted upon by respondent Court.
On April 1,
1980, petitioners
filed an Amended Protest covering the position of Vice-Mayor (Election Case 3),
and another Amended Protest (Election Case 3-A) in respect of the members of
the Sangguniang Bayan. The corresponding cash deposits in the total
amount of P2,000.00[1] and filing fees of P100.00 each[2] were likewise satisfied, except for two
protestants for the position of members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, who failed to pay the filing fees.
In the meantime, apparently
unaware of petitioners’ Motion for extension dated March 26, 1980, respondent Court dismissed the Election
Protest in its Order of March 27, 1980, herein assailed, reasoning as follows:
“The Court believes
that the period within which the protestants
may submit amended petitions in order to separate the protest for vice?mayor
from that of the protest involving the membership in the Sangguniang
Bayan may be extended in the exercise of sound
discretion by the Court. However, with
respect to the period within which the
filing fee of P100.00 may be paid and the period within which the
cash deposit of P1,000.00 may
be made may not be extended. This is so
because the time to file a protest which carries with it the corresponding
payment of the filing fee, may not be extended. With respect to the cash deposits which may
be required pursuant to Section 7 of the Procedural Rules involving election
contests for elective offices in the municipalities and municipal districts, it
is because it is provided in section 7 that:
” x x x. Failure to make
the cash deposits herein provided within the prescribed time limit shall result
in the automatic dismissal of the protest or counter-protest, as the case may
be.”
“The Court notes that, even
if all the petitions for extensions were legally permissible, the protestants had failed to comply with the Order dated February 28, 1980 within the
extensions sought by them. Considering
the fact that the protestants, thru counsel, received
a copy of the said Order on March 4,
1980, the last day of the 10-day-period within which to comply was March 14, 1980. The first motion for extension was for 5
days and the last day thereof was on March
19, 1980. The second motion
for extension of time was filed on March
21, 1980 when the first sought extension of 5 days had already expired. But even assuming arguendo
that the same were extended, still the second extension of 7 days sought by the
protestants had already expired because
counting 7 days from March 20, 1980 the last day within which the protestants
could have complied with the Order dated February 28, 1980 should have been on
March 26, 1980.
Accordingly, the failure of the protestants to file the amended
petitions referred to in the Order dated February 28, 1980, to pay the filing
fees and the cash deposits mentioned in the said Order ‘results in the
automatic dismissal of the protest’ as provided under Section 7 of the
Procedural Rules.”[3]
Petitioners received this
Order on April 1, 1980. They moved for reconsideration twice but were
unsuccessful in both attempts, as embodied in respondent Court’s challenged
Orders of May 16 and October 3, 1980. This
last Order was received by petitioners on January 5, 1981.[4]
The instant Petition was
filed on February 27, 1981 within the extended period granted by this
Court. On May 20, 1981, we resolved to give due course thereto and
considered the case submitted for decision without need for submittal
of memoranda.
We hold that respondent
Court committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction
when it dismissed the protest. It is
significant to note that petitioners had promptly filed their original joint
protest on February 12, 1980, or, within the period of ten days after the
proclamation of respondents on February 2, 1980, pursuant to section 190 of the 1978
Election Code, then the governing proviso.
Petitioners had also duly paid the necessary filing fee of P32.00
and legal research fund fee of P2.00 as shown by receipts issued by the Clerk
of Court of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, Branch V, Gapan,
also pursuant to the requirements then in force.[5]
Thus, in the filing of their original protest, there was full compliance by
petitioners with then prevailing requisites.
That protest contained all the jurisdictional facts and statements of a
cause of action to warrant a hearing of the case on the merits.
Upon the filing of the
original Protest, therefore, respondent Court had already acquired jurisdiction
over petitioners’ protest, and petitioners-protestants should not be deprived of their right to be heard on the merits of their case.
“After the court has acquired jurisdiction of an election
protest by the presentation of the motion of protest within time and proper
notice is given and the bond has been filed, it deprives the protestant of his
right to be heard upon the merits of his cause by dismissing the protest and mandamus
will issue to compel a reinstatement of the same and a hearing upon the
merits.”[6]
It is true that under
Section 7 of Resolution No. 1451, failure to make the cash deposits within the
prescribed time limit shall result in the automatic dismissal of the
protest. That provision, however, finds
no application herein. Petitioners were
not remiss in complying with the rules nor with the Order of respondent Court dated February 28, 1980. This
is so because they had seasonably filed their motions for extension of time
within which to comply, based on meritorious grounds, the last of which was unacted upon by the Court.
There is a dispute as to whether the petition for extension of March
19, 1980 was, in
fact, filed on said date or on March 21, 1980. If
the latter date, the extended period would have already expired. But, as petitioners claim, they had sent by
registered mail the second prayer for extension on March 19, 1980, which would have been the last day and
would still have been complying, the date of mailing being considered as the
date of filing (Section 1, Rule 13, Rules of
Court). Petitioners’ third and last
Motion for extension dated March 26, 1980 was not resolved by respondent Court. It was even unaware of said Motion at the
time it dismissed the Protest on March 27, 1980.
Petitioners filed their compliance on April 1, 1980, which was within the last extended period
of time requested, or up to April 2, 1980, unaware of any denial of the extensions
asked, nor of the Order of dismissal, which they received only on the same
date, or, April 1, 1980.
Petitioners promptly sought reconsideration thereafter.
There should be no question but that the filing of an election
protest and with it the payment of docket fees should be done within the
statutory period[7],
and that no extensions of said period are legally permissible. The factual environment in the instant case,
as above explained, however, removes this case from the rigid application of
that mandatory rule. Had the protest
herein been filed after February 26,
1980, the date of the promulgation of Comelec
Resolution No. 1451, that general rule would have been perfectly
applicable. As matters stand, however,
Resolution No. 1451 was promulgated only subsequent to the filing of the
original protest. This was presented
well within the reglementary period and the requisite
filing fees likewise paid. Petitioners
were then unaware of the increase in filing fees nor
of the requirement regarding cash deposits as embodied in the Comelec Resolution.
Giving them time to comply with the new rules was but fair and
equitable.
Above all, there is a cardinal principle to consider. An election contest does not merely concern
the personal interests of rival candidates for an office. Over and above their claims is the deep
public interest involved, the need to imperatively determine the correct
expression of the will of the
electorate. More, “it is a
recognized principle that laws governing election protests must be liberally
interpreted to the end that the popular will expressed in the election of
public officers will not, by reason of purely technical objections, be
defeated.”[8]
WHEREFORE, the questioned Orders of March 27, May 16, and
October 3, 1980, are hereby set aside, and respondent Court hereby ordered to
give due course to the separate Amended Protests for the position of
Vice-Mayor and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, respectively.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, and
De Castro*, JJ., concur.
[1]
page 49, Rollo.
[2]
pages 47-50, ibid.
[3]
pages 29-30, ibid.
[4]
page 17, ibid.
[5]
pages 45, 46 & 50, ibid.
[6]
Ancheta and Aguilar vs. Judge of 1st Instance
of La Union, 40 Phil. 73, 74 (1919).
[7]
see Malimit vs. Degamo, 12 SCRA 450 (1964).
[8]
Macasundig
vs. Macalangan, 13 SCRA
577 (1965).
* Justice Pacifico
P. de Castro was designated to sit with the First Division vice Justice Ramon
C. Fernandez, who is on official leave.