View full case

EVELYN ABEJA v. JUDGE FEDERICO TAÑADA

FACTS:

The case involves an election contest between petitioner Evelyn Abeja and private respondent Rosauro Radovan for the office of municipal mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, in the May 11, 1992, national elections. Based on the official returns, private respondent was proclaimed as the winner with 6,215 votes as against petitioner's 5,951 votes. Petitioner then filed an election protest, covering 22 precincts, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City. Private respondent filed an Answer with a Counter-Protest covering 36 precincts. During the pre-trial, private respondent's counsel requested that the 36 counter-protested precincts be revised only if it is shown after the completion of the revision of the 22 protested precincts that petitioner leads by a margin of at least one vote. The revision of the 22 protested precincts was completed in September 1992, but private respondent refused to commence the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts. Petitioner moved to consider the counter-protest of private respondent withdrawn, which was opposed by private respondent. The then presiding judge did not rule on the matter. By April 1993, all pending incidents were considered submitted for resolution, but private respondent had not caused the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts. Private respondent died in June 1993 and was substituted by Vice-Mayor Conrado de Rama and his surviving spouse. The trial court issued an order stating that pending matters would be resolved on or before August 20, 1993. Before leaving his post, the presiding judge issued an order on August 18, 1993, ruling on the contested ballots of the 22 protested precincts but without declaring a winner in the election protest. Petitioner then filed a motion to determine votes, proclaim winner, and allow assumption of office, claiming that she led private respondent by a margin of 281 votes based on the revised ballots. Private respondents opposed the motion, arguing that it was premature since the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts had not been done. The trial court denied petitioner's motion and issued orders directing the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts. This petition for certiorari seeks the annulment of the said orders.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent may still be allowed to commence the revision of the counter-protested precincts or should he be deemed to have waived his right to present his own evidence.

  2. Whether the sequence in the presentation of evidence may be altered for special reasons.

  3. Whether the respondent judge erred in directing the revision of the counter-protested precincts and denying the petitioner's motion to determine votes, declare winner, and allow assumption of office

  4. Whether the substitution of the deceased protestee's widow as the counter-protestant is valid

  5. Whether or not the election protest filed by respondent Rosauro Radovan should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

  6. Whether or not the withdrawal of Rosauro Radovan's protest was valid and effective.

RULING:

  1. The respondent must be deemed to have waived his right to present his evidence for the revision of the counter-protested precincts. The respondent's refusal to revise the counter-protested precincts despite being afforded ample time to do so amounts to abandonment of his counter-protest. The applicable Comelec rules provide for the presentation of evidence by the parties in succession and there is no provision allowing the presentation of evidence by the protestee after the court has ruled on the evidence of the protestant.

  2. The sequence in the presentation of evidence may be altered for special reasons, but the respondent's insistence on revising the counter-protested precincts only if the protestant leads by at least one vote is not a valid reason. This self-serving rule without legal sanction would unduly prolong the litigation.

  3. The respondent judge erred in directing the revision of the counter-protested precincts and denying the petitioner's motion. The petitioner has consistently refused to proceed with the revision of the counter-protested precincts, causing delay in the resolution of the case. The procedure proposed by the respondent is not sanctioned by the rules and is considered a dilatory tactic. The court held that the order of the respondent judge resolving the objections to the revised ballots may be the basis for a valid decision on the electoral protest.

  4. The substitution of the deceased protestee's widow as the counter-protestant is not valid. Public office is personal to the incumbent and does not pass to his heirs. The counter-claim for damages of the deceased protestee is extinguished upon his death.

  5. The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the election protest filed by Rosauro Radovan. The Court noted that the jurisdiction of the RTC was provided for in Section 7 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which grants the RTC jurisdiction over all election contests involving elective municipal officials. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case.

  6. The withdrawal of Rosauro Radovan's protest was held to be valid and effective. The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of an election protest is a matter of right, which can be exercised by the protestant even after the protestee has been proclaimed as the winner. In this case, Rosauro Radovan clearly expressed his intention to withdraw the protest, and the COMELEC recognized and gave due course to the withdrawal. Hence, the withdrawal is valid and effective.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The presentation of evidence by the parties in an election protest must be in accordance with the order or sequence provided in the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

  • The court shall render its decision after both parties have presented their respective evidence, and there is no provision allowing the presentation of evidence by the protestee after the court has ruled on the evidence of the protestant.

  • Laches is a failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to assert a right, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

  • Failure to make the cash deposits required within the prescribed time limit shall result in the automatic dismissal of the protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-intervention.

  • The immediate execution of decisions in election cases adverse to the protestees is allowed as long as there are good reasons for it.

  • Public office is personal to the incumbent and does not pass to his heirs. Counter-claims for damages are extinguished upon the death of the protestee.

  • The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over election contests involving elective municipal officials, as provided for in Section 7 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

  • The withdrawal of an election protest is a matter of right, which can be exercised by the protestant even after the protestee has been proclaimed as the winner.