G.R. No. 138969 - SALIPONGAN DAGLOC, VS. THE COMMISSION ON

Ruling

Accordingly, grounds which are proper for electoral protests should not be allowed to delay the proclamation of the winners. As this Court pointed out in Dimaporo v. Commission on Elections : [13] It may well be true that that public policy may occasionally permit the occurrence of "grab the proclamation and prolong the protest" situations; that public policy, however, balances the possibility of such situations against the shortening of the period during which no winners are proclaimed, a period commonly fraught with tension and danger for the public at large. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the filing by private respondent of a petition for declaration of failure of election (SPA No. 98-356) did not suspend the running of the reglementary period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings. The period for private respondent to do so expired on May 24, 1998, 10 days from the proclamation of Sukarno Samad and petitioner as mayor and vice-mayor, respectively. The filing of private respondent's election protest in the RTC on June 19, 1998 was made out of time. However, petitioner's contention that the assailed resolution is invalid because Commissioner Abdul Gani M. Marohombsar had no authority to sign the same, because his term had expired when the resolution was promulgated, is without merit. It appears that Commissioner Marohombsar's term expired on June 3, 1999 (not June 4, 1999 as alleged by petitioner), while the assailed resolution was promulgated on June 29, 1999. The voting was 6-1. Even disregarding the vote of Commissioner Marohombsar there was still a majority. The resolution in question is, therefore, valid. On the other hand, private respondent contends that the petition in SPR No. 37-98 filed in the COMELEC by Samad, petitioner's predecessor, should be dismissed and stricken out since it is actually based on a motion to dismiss in Election Protest No. 38-98 in the RTC, which is a prohibited pleading under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The argument is also untenable. Private respondent apparently refers to the prohibition found in Rule 13, §1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, [14] under Part III entitled initiation of actions or proceedings before the commission. As is evident from the said heading, this provision is applicable only to actions or proceedings before the COMELEC. Rule 1, §2 of the COMELEC Rules states: These rules, except Part VI, shall apply to all actions and proceedings brought before the Commission. Part VI shall apply to election contests and quo warranto cases cognizable by courts of general or limited jurisdiction. The prohibition, therefore, does not apply to the proceedings in the RTC where the motion to dismiss was filed. WHEREFORE, the resolution, dated June 29, 1999, of the Commission on Elections is SET ASIDE and Election Protest No. 38-98 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City is ordered DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. SO ORDERED.