G.R. No. 129938 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS, JR., VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSE R. RODRIGUEZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Commission resolves to GRANT, as it hereby GRANTS, the petitions. The respondent courts order dated February 19, 1997, denying petitioners presentation of evidence, the order dated March 10, 1997, denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, the Decision dated April 21, 1997, the order dated June 17, 1997, directing the issuance of a writ of execution, and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto are SET ASIDE. We order the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 50, to proceed immediately with the trial of Election Case No. 891. In the meantime, respondent Alfredo Enojas, Jr. shall vacate the position of mayor of Roxas, Palawan, and the petitioner shall assume said position to restore the parties to the status quo ante. This resolution is immediately executory. Let the records be remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. The records show that these facts are not substantially disputed: 1. Petitioner Alfredo B. Enojas, Jr. and respondent Jose R. Rodriguez were the mayoralty candidates for the Municipality of Roxas, Palawan in the May, 1995 elections. Respondent Rodriguez reportedly won by forty-eight (48) votes over petitioner Enojas and was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers for Roxas, Palawan as its duly elected mayor. 2. Petitioner Enojas, Jr. then filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, docketed as Special Election Case No. 891, seeking the revision of ballots in one hundred two (102) precincts in the municipality. However, after the revision of the ballots in thirty-nine (39) precincts, petitioner Enojas, Jr., with prior approval of the trial court, withdrew the remaining unrevised precincts from the revision proceedings. 3. After petitioner Enojas, Jr. had filed his Formal Offer of Exhibits and rested his case, respondent Rodriguez filed, with leave of court, a Motion to Dismiss [2] alleging, inter alia, that the court had no jurisdiction on the ground that the protest had not passed through the Katarungang Pambarangay and the correct docket fees had not been paid; that based on the allegations in the protest and the exhibits formally offered, protestant had no cause of action against the protestee because the protest should have been filed against the person or persons liable for the alleged errors in the counting of votes; that protestant should be deemed to have waived his right to file the present protest by reason of his failure to file a protest with the Board of Election Inspectors and/or Municipal Board of Canvassers; that the filing of the election protest was premature and should be dismissed for forum shopping since there was a pending pre-proclamation protest filed with the Municipal Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC; and that the allegations in the complaint are ambiguous for failure to make out clearly whether it is an election contest or a judicial recount. 4. On December 19, 1995, the trial court granted the motion of