View full case

FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL II v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

FACTS:

Petitioner Federico S. Sandoval II and respondent Aurora Rosario A. Oreta were candidates for the lone congressional district of Malabon-Navotas during the 14 May 2001 national elections. Petitioner was proclaimed duly elected representative by the District Board of Canvassers of Malabon-Navotas and assumed office on 30 June 2001.

On 1 June 2001, respondent filed an election protest against petitioner before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The protest alleged electoral frauds and anomalies in precincts of the Malabon-Navotas District. The HRET issued summons to petitioner on 4 June 2001, and it was served by substituted service on a maintenance man named Gene Maga on 7 June 2001.

On 12 July 2001, the HRET issued Resolution No. 01-081 noting petitioner's failure to file an answer to the election protest and entered a general denial on his behalf. The HRET ordered the parties to proceed to a preliminary conference. Petitioner received the order on 20 July 2001.

On 6 August 2001, instead of filing a preliminary conference brief, petitioner moved for reconsideration of Resolution No. 01-081 and the admission of his answer with counter-protest. The HRET denied reconsideration in Resolution No. 01-118.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the HRET's jurisdiction over his person and assailing Resolutions Nos. 01-081 and 01-118. The Office of the Solicitor General and the HRET submitted separate manifestations and motions in lieu of comment, supporting petitioner's position.

The instant case involves an election protest filed by respondent Oreta with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Oreta alleges that the election proceedings in 1,308 precincts of the Malabon-Navotas congressional district were manipulated to distort the people's will. The outcome of this case has significant implications as it could affect the assumption of petitioner Sandoval as congressman of the district. The observance of the HRET Rules of Procedure, in conjunction with the Rules of Court, is crucial to ensure fairness and the orderly determination of the true will of the electorate. The issue of the proper service of summons on petitioner Sandoval is also pivotal, as it affects both the jurisdiction of the HRET over Sandoval and the fairness of the proceedings. Compliance with the rules on summons is necessary for jurisdiction and due process. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which apply suppletorily to the HRET Rules through Rule 80, govern the service of summons. Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules provide for personal service and substituted service, respectively. Personal service is the preferred method for ensuring notice and due process, but if it is not practicable, substituted service may be used. However, statutory restrictions for substituted service must be strictly followed, including establishing the impossibility of personal service, efforts to locate the petitioners, and service on a person of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same residence or on a competent person in charge of the office or regular place of business. Failure to comply with these requirements renders the substituted service and subsequent proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent Oreta argues that personal service need not be exhausted before using substituted service in election protest cases, but the court disagrees, stating that all efforts should be made to ensure the most likely method of reaching the protestee, which is usually personal service. The preferential rule on service of summons in the Rules of Court applies suppletorily to the HRET Rules.

The case involves an election protest filed by petitioner Sandoval before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The HRET issued a summons to petitioner Sandoval, which was received by a Gene Maga of the Maintenance, District Office on June 7, 2001, at 1:25 p.m. On July 27, 2001, an Affidavit of Service was executed by Process Server Pacifico Lim and Accounting Clerk Aurora Napolis. The affidavit stated that Pacifico Lim found Gene Maga at the protestee's district office and left the summons with him. The affidavit also stated that Aurora Napolis had a conversation with Primitivo P. Reyes, a congressional staff of the protestee's father, who assured that someone at the protestee's district office could receive the summons. On June 16, 2001, the Chief of Staff of the protestee inquired about the last day to file the answer with the Office of the Secretary of the Tribunal, indicating that there was valid service of summons on the protestee. The HRET affirmed the validity of the substituted service of summons and its jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Sandoval, and rejected the admission of his answer with counter-protest.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was valid service of summons on the petitioner.

  2. Whether the person who received the summons was competent to do so.

  3. Whether or not Gene Maga was competent to receive the summons.

  4. Whether or not Gene Maga was in charge of petitioner's office.

  5. Whether or not there was valid substituted service of summons.

  6. Whether or not there was evidence to prove that someone with a relationship of confidence knew of the summons.

  7. Whether the process server properly served the summons upon petitioner Sandoval.

  8. Whether the HRET acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner.

  9. Whether petitioner's motion for reconsideration and admission of his answer with counter-protest were timely filed.

  10. Whether or not the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the election protest of petitioner Benigno Oreta Jr.

  11. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering a Decision that is contrary to law and established jurisprudence.

RULING:

  1. The service of summons on the petitioner was irregularly executed. The affidavit of service provided no details indicating the impossibility of personal service of summons upon the petitioner within a reasonable time. The record did not specify the efforts exerted to serve the summons personally on the petitioner. Therefore, the service of summons failed.

  2. The person who received the summons was not a competent person to do so. He was a "maintenance" man who offered his services to anyone. He was not an employee of the petitioner and therefore was not authorized or qualified to receive the summons.

  3. Gene Maga was not competent to receive the summons. The fact that he allegedly identified himself as a member of petitioner's staff does not automatically render him competent. His representation as a "maintenance" man and his lack of authority to receive documents should have alerted the process server that he could not accept the summons.

  4. Gene Maga was not in charge of petitioner's office. As a "maintenance" man, he did not have the control, management, or direction over the district office to be considered in charge.

  5. There was no valid substituted service of summons. The process server did not present evidence confirming the necessity for substituted service nor the authority of Maga to receive the summons. There was also no proof that anyone with a relationship of confidence knew about the summons to ensure petitioner's receipt or notification.

  6. There was no evidence to prove that someone with a relationship of confidence knew of the summons. The alleged assurance by an HRET employee that someone in petitioner's district office would receive the summons was not relied upon by the process server and there was no basis to show that the staff of Congressman Vicente A. Sandoval was petitioner's speaking agent with knowledge and authority.

  7. The process server did not properly serve the summons upon petitioner Sandoval. The process server hastily served the summons through substituted service without attempting personal service, in violation of the rules granting absolute preference to personal service of summons.

  8. The HRET did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner due to the defective and irregular substituted service of summons. Consequently, the period within which petitioner should file his answer with counter-protest did not start to run.

  9. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and admission of his answer with counter-protest were timely filed. The ground invoked by petitioner is lack of jurisdiction, and the appropriate pleading or motion may be filed anytime before it is barred by estoppel or laches.

  10. No, the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Oreta's election protest. The HRET found that Oreta failed to establish that the alleged discrepancies and irregularities in the election returns significantly affected the results of the election. Furthermore, the HRET ruled that Oreta failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of massive vote-padding and tampering. Thus, the dismissal of Oreta's election protest was upheld.

  11. No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in rendering a Decision that is contrary to law and established jurisprudence. The COMELEC determined that Oreta's counter-protest was filed out of time and should not be entertained. The COMELEC emphasized that the rules on election contests must be strictly followed to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of such cases. Therefore, the COMELEC's decision to dismiss Oreta's counter-protest was affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Valid service of summons requires personal service within a reasonable time or substituted service under exceptional circumstances.

  • The person receiving the summons must be competent and qualified to do so, having sufficient capacity, ability, or authority.

  • Substituted service of summons requires strict compliance with the rules and should only be resorted to when personal service cannot be made.

  • The person receiving the summons must be competent and authorized to receive on behalf of the defendant.

  • The one in charge of the defendant's regular place of business need not be specially authorized to receive summons, but they must appear to be in charge and have control and management of the office.

  • A telephone conversation must first be authenticated before it can be received in evidence. The person with whom the witness was conversing on the phone must be satisfactorily identified.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions does not apply in the absence of even the barest compliance with the procedure for substituted service of summons outlined in the Rules of Court.

  • When the ground invoked as the basis for affirmative relief is lack of jurisdiction, the appropriate pleading or motion may be filed anytime before it is barred by estoppel or laches.

  • The correction of jurisdictional errors is an established function of the writ of certiorari and our mandate under the Constitution.

  • The party challenging the results of an election has the burden of proving that the alleged irregularities and discrepancies significantly affected the results of the election.

  • Election protests must be filed within the prescribed period and adhere to the rules set by the electoral tribunal or the COMELEC to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of such cases.