View full case

ANTONIO T. KHO v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case involves a petition filed by petitioner Kho, a losing candidate in the 1995 gubernatorial elections in Masbate, against private respondents Espinosa to set aside Espinosa's proclamation as the Provincial Governor and declaring Kho as the winner in the elections. Petitioner Kho filed an election protest on May 30, 1995, and summons was issued to Espinosa on June 1, 1995.

Espinosa received the summons on June 6, 1995, and filed his answer with counter-protest on June 15, 1995. Kho filed a motion to expunge Espinosa's pleading on June 24, 1995, stating that it was filed beyond the reglementary period of five days. Kho also filed an omnibus motion requesting a general denial to be entered into the records due to Espinosa's failure to file an answer within the prescribed period.

The COMELEC First Division issued an order on July 26, 1995, admitting Espinosa's answer with counter-protest and requiring a supplemental pleading specifying the counter-protested precincts. Kho filed a motion to resolve on September 23, 1995, as Espinosa's answer was allegedly filed beyond the legal period. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the motion on September 26, 1995, ruling that Espinosa's answer was filed within the reglementary period. Kho filed a motion for reconsideration on September 29, 1995, which was denied by the COMELEC First Division on November 15, 1995.

Kho then filed a manifestation and motion before the COMELEC en banc on December 1, 1995, requesting the elevation of the case and the setting aside of related orders. The COMELEC First Division denied the prayer for elevation on February 28, 1996. Petitioner Kho then filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the belatedly filed answer with counter-protest and refusing to elevate the case to the Commission en banc.

ISSUES:

  1. May the Commission on Elections entertain a counter-protest filed by a party after the period to file the same has expired?

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the petition is meritorious. Private respondent Espinosa filed his answer with counter-protest beyond the reglementary period of five (5) days provided by law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The period to file an answer with counter-protest in an election protest is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.