ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 160865. March 9, 2004]

OCATE vs. COMELEC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 9 2004 .

G.R. No. 160865 (Celso L. Ocate vs. Honorable Commission on Elections and Angelito M. Lopez.)

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari filed by Celso L. Ocate seeking to set aside and nullify the Resolution [1] cralaw dated November 25, 2003 of the Commission on Elections (En Banc) in SPR Case No. 41-2002 which directed Hon. Tingaraan U. Guiling, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23, to proceed with the hearing of the election protest, docketed as Civil Case No. 001446-EC, filed by Angelito M. Lopez.

The factual antecedents are as follows:

Petitioner Celso L. Ocate and private respondent Angelito M. Lopez were rival candidates for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay 308, Quiapo, District II of Manila, during the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections. On the same day, after the votes were canvassed, the petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Barangay Chairman of the said barangay.

On July 26, 2002, the private respondent filed an election protest, docketed as Civil Case No. 001446-EC, with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The case was raffled to Branch 23 thereof, presided by Judge Tingaraan U. Guiling. In his election protest, the private respondent alleged that fraud and irregularities marred the conduct of the elections. The petitioner filed his answer thereto, alleging as an affirmative defense the lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC inasmuch as the election protest was filed out of time. According to the petitioner, the election protest was filed one day late as the last day for the filing thereof was on July 25, 2002.

In reply to the answer, the private respondent maintained that the election protest was timely filed on July 26, 2002. He averred that when he went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the MeTC of Manila in the afternoon of July 25, 2002, supposedly the last day for filing the election protest, there were no officers nor employees of the court to receive and docket the pleading. It appears that on that day, the Court Administrator ordered the suspension of work due to heavy rains caused by typhoon "Kaka" ^[2] cralaw Consequently, the private respondent was constrained to file the election protest in the morning of the following day, July 26, 2002.

On August 7, 2002, the MeTC issued an Order setting the case for preliminary conference on August 22, 2002. During the said conference, arguments and counter-arguments were raised by the parties. Also on that day, Atty. Maisara Dandamun-Latiph, who represented herself as co-counsel for the private respondent, filed an ex parte motion praying that the MeTC (1) direct the Manila City Treasurer to deliver the ballot boxes used in the July 15, 2002 barangay elections of Brgy. 308, Quiapo, Manila, on or before August 22, 2002; and (2) direct the City Election Officer IV, Aniceta Laceda, to deliver the Book of Voters and Voters' Registration Records and other election paraphernalia used therein on or before August 22, 2002.

In its Order of August 22, 2002, the MeTC set the dates for the pre-trial and trial of the case. It, likewise, directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda within five days from the preliminary conference.

On August 26, 2002, the petitioner filed a Comment-Opposition stating that he did not receive a copy of the August 7, 2002 Order setting the case for preliminary conference. He further averred that Atty. Dandamun-Latiph, who filed the ex parte motion, did not enter her appearance as co-counsel for the private respondent and that the said motion should be treated as a mere scrap of paper as it did not contain any notice of hearing.

On September 2, 2002, the petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Motion with Leave of Court for Clarification" seeking explanation as to the MeTC's assumption of jurisdiction. In the Order of September 3, 2002, the MeTC justified its taking cognizance of the election protest ruling that it was seasonably filed. It pointed out that while the deadline for the filing of the election protest was on July 25, 2002, compliance therewith was not possible because the courts were closed on that day. The filing thereof on July 26, 2002 was, thus, deemed compliance with the law. The MeTC, thus, ordered the reopening of the ballot boxes pertaining to the contested precincts.

The petitioner then filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Guiling in assuming jurisdiction over the election protest. Acting thereon, the COMELEC (Second Division) issued the Order dated February 13, 2003 ^[3] cralaw granting the petition and dismissing the private respondent's election protest in Civil Case No. 001446-EC. It ruled that the same was filed out of time.

The COMELEC (Second Division) found that Judge Guiling committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the following: (1) the Order dated August 7, 2002 setting the case for preliminary hearing without furnishing the petitioner's counsel a copy thereof; and (2) the Order dated August 22, 2002 as it heard the private respondent's ex parte motion on the day it was filed. It, thus, reprimanded Judge Guiling for his acts constituting grave abuse of discretion.

On motion for reconsideration filed by the private respondent, the COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed Resolution dated November 25, 2003 ^[4] cralaw reversing and setting aside the Second Division's resolution. The COMELEC En Banc held that the MeTC properly took cognizance of the election protest as it was seasonably filed. It emphasized that technicalities should not stand in the way of determining the people's will.

With respect to the MeTC Order of August 22, 2002, the COMELEC En Banc found that the hearing conducted on the said day was the preliminary conference. Granting arguendothat the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the order setting the same, it was cured by the presence of his counsel at the hearing. Further, contrary to the petitioner's allegation, the MeTC did not rule upon the ex parte motion filed by the private respondent's counsel during the same hearing but instead required the parties to file their respective memoranda within five days therefrom.

The petitioner now comes to this Court raising this sole issue -

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE ELECTION PROTEST OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS FILED ON TIME. ^[5] cralaw

In the Resolution of December 18, 2003, the Court issued a status quo ante order addressed to respondent COMELEC and Judge Guiling directing them, their agents, representatives or persons acting in their place or stead, to observe the status quo prevailing before the filing of the petition. ^[6] cralaw

After a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed in this case, the Court is convinced that respondent COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the private respondent's election protest was filed within the reglementary period.

Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code provides in part that "[a] sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay officer shall be filed with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election."

It is well settled that technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. ^[7] cralaw

In this case, it cannot be gainsaid that the private respondent's one day delay in filing the election protest was due to his fault. As earlier established, the deadline to file the election protest was on July 25, 2002, ten days after the petitioner's proclamation. However, compliance therewith by the private respondent was rendered impossible because, upon order of the Court Administrator, office work in all the courts on that day was suspended on account of typhoon "Kaka." In fact, when the private respondent arrived at the MeTC on that day, there were no court employees to receive his election protest. The private respondent was constrained to file the same the following day, or on July 26, 2002.

Clearly, the private respondent exerted due diligence in filing his election protest within the period provided by law, but failed to do so on account of the typhoon. Under the circumstances, the MeTC correctly took a liberal stance in the application of procedural rules in view of the fortuitous event, considering that litigation is not a game of technicalities. ^[8] cralaw Necessarily, respondent COMELEC committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the jurisdiction of the MeTC over the private respondent's election protest and ordering it to proceed with the hearing thereof. Grave abuse of discretion is the "capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." ^[9] cralaw There is no such showing in this case as to warrant the issuance by this Court of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

Again, it bears emphasizing that -

Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the votes. ^[10] cralaw

The strict, or even blind, application of technical rules must yield if it would thwart the determination of the true will of the electorate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Further, the status quo ante order issued by the Court on December 18, 2003 is LIFTED.

Puno, J., on leave.

Panganiban, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos and Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco, Rufino S.B. Javier, Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentine A. Tuason, Jr. concurring with Commissioners Ralph C. Lantion and Mehol K. Sadain dissenting.

^[2] cralaw Certification issued by the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila; Annex P-15 to the Petition; Rollo, p. 275.

^[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 298-308.

^[4] cralaw Id. at 310-320.

^[5] cralaw Id. at 11.

^[6] cralaw Id. at 337.

^[7] cralaw Rulloda v. Commission on Elections, 395 SCRA 535 (2003).

^[8] cralaw Hagonoy Market Vendor Association v. Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan, 376 SCRA 376 (2002).

^[9] cralaw Malinias v. COMELEC, 390 SCRA 480 (2002).

^[10] cralaw O'Hara v. Commission on Elections, 379 SCRA 247 (2002).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011