G.R. No. 181295 - HARLIN CASTILLO ABAYON, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RAUL A. DAZA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant election protest is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. [16] On 10 October 2007, Abayon filed before the COMELEC en banc a Motion for Reconsideration [17] of the Order dated 8 October 2007 of the COMELEC First Division in EPC No. 2007-62. The COMELEC en banc denied Abayon's Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution [18] dated 28 January 2008. It affirmed that the election protest in EPC No. 2007-62 was belatedly filed. The COMELEC en banc maintained that SPC No. 07-037 seeking the exclusion from canvass of the COCs from three municipalities of Northern Samar was based on grounds that were not proper for a pre-proclamation controversy. SPC No. 07-037 lacked merit and could not have rendered Daza's proclamation void. Consequently, SPC No. 07-070 - in which Abayon challenged Daza's proclamation on the basis that it was made counting the votes in the COCs sought to be excluded in SPC No. 07-037 - was without merit. The suspension of the ten-day period for filing an election protest was intended to ensure that the losing candidate who filed a pre-proclamation case retains the right to avail himself of an election protest. This rationale presupposes that there is a valid pre-proclamation controversy; otherwise, such rationale would be defeated if the ten-day suspension period is applied to a pre-proclamation contest so manifestly baseless that it cannot prosper. The COMELEC then ruled that: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVED, to DENY the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The Resolution of the Commission (First Division) ordering the dismissal of the case for having been filed out of time is hereby AFFIRMED. [19] On 5 February 2003, Abayon sought remedy from this Court via the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, on the basis of the following arguments: I VILLAMOR VS. COMELEC APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE WHERE THE BASIS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF PROCLAMATION IS BY ITS VERY NATURE COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR THE ANNULMENT OF PROCLAMATION, LIKE THE ILLEGAL COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD; II VILLAMOR VS. COMELEC IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT (sic) UNDER SECTION 248 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; HENCE IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY; AND III THE PROTEST IS SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE; HENCE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THE TRUE WINNER IN THE ELECTION SHOULD BE PARAMOUNT OVER THE TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS. [20] The Court identifies the two main issues in this case to be as follows: (1) whether the mere filing of a pre-proclamation case, regardless of the issues raised therein, suspends the ten-day period for the filing of an election protest; and (2) if the answer to the first issue is in the negative, whether the election protest which is untimely filed may still be considered by the COMELEC. Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code fixes the period within which to file an e