ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 143277.February 27, 2001]
LAVIN vs. HON. INFANTE
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 27 2001.
G.R. No. 143277(Gary M. Lavin vs. Hon. Salvador L. Infante, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Allen, Northern Samar and Laureana Suan.)
For this Court's resolution is private respondent's "Most Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order and For Early Resolution" dated January 16, 2001.
The facts are:
Petitioner Gary M. Lavin and private respondent Laureana D. Suan were candidates for the position of mayor in the municipality of Allen, Northern Samar during the May 11, 1998 elections.
On May 14, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers officially proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Allen with a majority of 177 votes over private respondent.
Forthwith, private respondent filed an election protest (Election Case No. A-70) with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23 of Allen, Northern Samar, presided by respondent judge.On December 23, 1999, the court ordered the revision and examination of the ballots and other election documents.
On April 17, 2000, the Revision Committee completed the revision and examination of nineteen (19) precincts out of the thirty-four (34) precincts under protest.
On April 19, 2000, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the protest, based on Sec. 14, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, 1 "Sec. 14. Partial Determination of the case. - The Court may direct the protestant and, in case there is a counter-protest, the counter-protestant, to state and designate in writing his or their choice of precincts, numbering not more that twenty-five (25%) per centum of the total number of precincts involved in the protest and counter-protest, if any, whose ballot boxes shall first be opened, and shall thereafter make a partial determination of the case based on what appears from the examination of said ballot boxes and their contents or the revision of the ballots therein.If such a determination shows that the results of the elections would not be affected, the protestant or counter-protestant shall be required to show cause why the protest or counter-protest, as the case may be, should not be dismissed." alleging that of the nineteen precincts revised and examined, the scores and results of the votes for both parties tally exactly with the official canvass of votes by the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) and the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
On April 25, 2000, respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss for lack of legal basis.Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was also denied.
On May 4, 2000, the Revision Committee completed the revision and examination of the ballots and other election documents of all the thirty-four (34) contested precincts.Again, the petitioner filed with respondent court a second motion to dismiss, alleging that the number of votes reflected in the "Tally Boards" and the "Election Returns" in words, figures and "taras" tally exactly with the scores and the number of votes as those previously canvassed in the precincts level by the BEI and the Municipal Board of Canvassers.Again, respondent judge denied this motion and petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration.
On May 16, 2000, petitioner filed with the Office of the Court Administrator an administrative complaint against respondent judge for grave abuse of authority, grave abuse of discretion, gross ignorance of the law and partiality/bias.
On May 18, 2000, petitioner filed an urgent motion for inhibition of respondent judge on the ground that by reason of the filing of the administrative complaint against him, he cannot be expected to act fairly, justly and impartiality in his assessment and evaluation of the evidence in the instant case.
Respondent judge denied the said motion for inhibition for lack of merit and petitioner's urgent motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Petitioner contends that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders denying his motion for inhibition considering the pendency of an administrative case against him.
Meanwhile, on May 30, 2000, petitioner again filed with the Office of the Court Administrator another complaint against respondent judge for grave abuse of authority, partiality/bias and misconduct in office.
The two administrative complaints were consolidated and docketed as Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 00-1014-RTJ (Gary M. Lavin vs. Judge Salvador L. Infante, Regional Trial Court, Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23).
On June 20, 2000, this Court issued a temporary restraining order directing respondent judge "to cease and desist from taking cognizance of Election Case No. A-70 (Laureana D. Suan vs. Gary M. Lavin), most specifically from sitting as the presiding judge in said protest case and from issuing any further orders."
In her comment on the petition, private respondent averred, inter alia that the filing of the instant petition directly with the Supreme Court violates the principle of judicial hierarchy; and that the issuance of a temporary restraining order will further delay the disposition of Election Case No. A-70.
Pending resolution of this case or on September 20, 2000, this Court dismissed AM OCA IPI No. 00-1014-RTJ, holding that the main issue in the administrative case is judicial in nature and there is no evidence on record which shows that respondent judge was motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption.
In her present motion, private respondent prays for the lifting of the temporary restraining order and the dismissal of the petition.
The petition alleges in the main that respondent judge should have inhibited himself from hearing Election Case No. A-70 since he is the respondent in AM OCA (IPI) No. 00-1014-RTJ filed by herein petitioner.
Considering that this Court dismissed the said administrative case, the instant petition must necessarily fail.It bears reiterating that the case was dismissed since "the main issue in this case is judicial in nature and there is no evidence on record showing that respondent Judge was motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption" in hearing Election Case No. A-70.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.The temporary restraining order issued on June 20, 2000 is lifted.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
