ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 127839.January 30, 2001]

GANZON II & PASCO vs. CA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 30 2001.

G.R. No. 127839(Simeon B. Ganzon II and Juber H. Pasco vs. The Court of Appeals, Cresenciano Duremdes, Sr., and Susan T. Bedro.)

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated January 14, 1997, in CA-G.R. SP No. 41167, which ordered the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 27 to desist from further hearing EPC No. 10-1995 and to dismiss it.

����������� During the May 8, 1995 local elections, petitioners Simeon B. Ganzon II and Juber Pasco were, respectively, candidates for mayor and vice-mayor of Balasan, Iloilo. Opposing them were private respondents Cresenciano D. Duremdes, Sr., and Susan T. Bedro, respectively. During the canvassing of the election returns, petitioners, objected to the inclusion of election returns from six (6) precincts. The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied the protest. Petitioners filed an appeal with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by registered mail that same day. Petitioners opposed the inclusion of said returns. The Board once again denied petitioners' objection, prompting the latter to appeal to the COMELEC later that day. Thus, petitioners filed two appeals with the COMELEC.

On May 11, 1995, private respondents Duremdes and Bedro were proclaimed mayor and vice-mayor, respectively Eight days later, petitioners filed a petition with the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No 95-165 to annul the proclamation of private respondents.

The COMELEC set aside the proclamation of respondents and directed transmittal of the election returns of Precincts 7, 7-A, 12, 12-A, 15 and 16-A to the COMELEC.

After reviewing the disputed returns, the First Division of the COMELEC dismissed the petitioners' appeals and allowed the proclamation of Cresenciano Duremdes and Susan Bedro.

Petitioners filed election protest case, EPC No 10-1995 with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. Private respondents moved to dismiss EPC No 10-1995 on the grounds that the election protest was not filed in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure; the protest case was filed out of time; and for failure of the protestants to make the required cash deposit.

The RTC denied private respondents' motion to dismiss. On the same day, the trial court ordered petitioners to amend their complaint in EPC No. 10-1995, by requiring them to file their separate and respective protests for the contested positions.

Private respondents moved for reconsideration. Petitioners complied with the RTC order and filed separate election protests, with the protest of petitioner Juber against private respondent Bedro docketed as EPC No. 10-1995A. Private respondents filed a supplemental motion to dismiss petitioners' protest cases on the ground of non-payment of filing fees.

The trial court denied both private respondents' motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion to dismiss and directed them to file their respective answers to the protests. Meanwhile, private respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41167, assailing the resolution of the trial court dated January 17, 1995, as well as its order of June 20, 1995. They contended that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to want or excess of jurisdiction in failing to dismiss the election protest.

The Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. SP No. 41167 in favor of herein private respondents, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 27 is hereby ordered to desist from further proceeding with the election protest filed by private respondents docketed as EPC No. 10-1995 except to dismiss the same.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, the present recourse to this Court.

Simply put, the issues presented for our resolution are:

(1) May the Court of Appeals issue extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against interlocutory orders of trial courts in election cases?

(2) Is a violation of the "one office, one protest" rule in election protests a valid ground for dismissing an election protest?

(3) Was EPC No. 10-1995 filed beyond the reglementary period?

At the outset, however, we must inquire whether the protest was belatedly filed? For the other two issues would depend on whether the protest was filed properly before the RTC for its consideration.

The Municipal Board of Canvassers initially proclaimed the election results on May 11, 1995. However, this proclamation was set aside by the COMELEC in its resolution of June 23, 1995 for violating Section 20, R.A. No. 7166. The COMELEC did not expressly decree the proclamation as void ab initio. Instead, it directed the Board of Canvassers to transmit the contested election returns for examination, as a provisional measure. The Commission wanted to be first satisfied on the validity of the disputed election returns, before issuing a final ruling on the validity of the proclamation. It did not void the proclamation. In its resolution of July 27, 1995, the COMELEC lifted its order setting aside the proclamation after finding that the challenged election returns were valid. Private respondents were thus validly proclaimed as the winning candidates on May 11, 1995. The running of the ten-day period within which to file an election protest, in accordance with Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code, 1 ELECT. CODE, Sec. 251.Election contest for municipal offices. - A sworn petition contesting the election of municipal officer shall be filed with the proper regional trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten (10) days after proclamation of the results of the election.is reckoned from this date. Thus, we find that EPC No. 10-1995 was belatedly filed on August 8, 1995. Hence we need not tarry in order to settle the other points at issue.

����������� Considering moreover, that the terms of office for the disputed mayoralty and vice-mayoralty seats have already expired, and taking judicial notice of the fact that elections for the succeeding terms of office were concluded last May 11, 1998, the instant petition has become moot.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot. The temporary restraining order of February 17, 1997 enjoining the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals from implementing and enforcing its questioned decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41167 is LIFTED.

BELLOSILLO, J., No Part.PUNO, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com