Access over 20 million homework & study documents

163674550_election_law_digests_cases_doc.doc

Content type
User Generated
Rating
Showing Page:
1/25
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
1
ELECTION CONTESTS
16 TOMARONG V. LUBGUBAN
269 SCRA 624
(TAN, L.)
FACTS:
Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 Barangay
Elections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protest before the respective
MCTC’s. The winning candidates filed their answers praying that the petitions be
dismissed based on the affirmative defense that the protestants failed to attach to
their petitions the required certification on non-forum shopping as provided for in
SC-AC No. 04-94.
The MCTC initially ruled to dismiss but deferred t o the Secretary of Justice who
then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled that the certification on non-
forum shopping should be required in elections contests before the MTC’s. Thus
this petition under Rule 65.
HELD:
The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is required for election
contests.
Yes. The Court, citing Loyola v. Court of Appeals, said that: “We do not agree that
SC-AC No. 04-94 is not applicable to election cases. There is nothing in the
Circular that indicates that it does not apply to election cases. On the contrary, it
expressly provides that the requirements therein, which are in addition to those in
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, ‘shall be strictly
complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, applications or other initiatory
pleadings in all courts and agencies other the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals.’ Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus.”
In this case, the petitioners filed the required certification 18 days after filing their
petitions. It cannot be considered substantial compliance with the requirements of
the Circular. Quite obviously, the reglementary period for filing the protest had, by
then, already expired. Petition dismissed.
Note: There can be substantial compliance even after a motion to dismiss has been
filed on the ground of lack of certificate of non-forum shopping but it must be done
asap (the next day) otherwise the value of the SC Circular would lose its value.
17 BEAGAN V. BORJA
261 SCRA 474
(TEEHANKEE)
FACTS:
May 1994. Barangay Elections in Bislig, Tanauan, Leyte
Election protest filed by Arnulfo Santillano, Egonio as protestee, Beegan
as intervenor
About revision of three ballot boxes completed in October 1994, Revision
Committee presented its report to the Court November 3, 1994
Problem arises when the abovementioned ballots were reopened for
Xeroxing purposes for the perusal of the protestee’s counsel
Office and Court Administrator viewed acts of respondents in effecting the
reopening of the ballot boxes and copying tantamount to misconduct in
office
Balano (clerk of court) and Borja believed in good faith that they had the
authority to allow such.
HELD:
Photocopying of ballots is not tantamount to misconduct in office.
As long as no tampering or alteration was manifest in
Xeroxing/photocopying of court records, no liability attaches to anyone.
Respondents are exonerated.
18 FERMO V. COMELEC
328 SCRA 52
(VALDEZ)
FACTS:
LAXINA and FERMO- candidates for the position of Punong Brgy. in
QC. (1997 elections) LAXINA was proclaimed winner
FERMO- filed election protest question results in 4 clustered precincts on
ground of massive fraud and serious irregularities.
MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) and granted a
motion for execution pending appeal. COMELEC reversed on ground that
the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time
appeal is decided—not a “good reason” to warrant execution pending
appeal.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/25
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
2
HELD:
A motion for executing pending appeal on ground of term expiration is not “good
reason” for issuance.
Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction and possession of
original record… in its discretion, order execution of judgment or final order even
before expiration of the period to appeal
Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on “good reasons
(combination of 2 or more will suffice):
1. PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED OR WILL OF
ELECTORATE
2. SHORTNESS of remaining portion of term of contested office
3. LENGTH OF TIME that election contest has been PENDING
Shortness of remaining term- not good reason for execution of judgment
pending appealRA 8524: extended term of office of Brgy. officials to 5
years (negates claim of FERMO
Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal, decision of
FERMO’s proclamation as winner was stayed—status quo (last actual
peaceful uncontested situation preceding the controversy) restored
LAXINA: entitled to discharge functions
19 SAQUILAYAN V. COMELEC
416 SCRA 658
(DINO)
FACTS:
1. SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of Municipal
Mayor of Imus, Cavite.
2. SAQUILAYAN was proclaimed winner.
3. JARO instituted an Election Protest Case before the RTC, contesting the
results of all 453 election precincts. He alleges the ff:
a. Votes in favor of JARO were considered stray
b. Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considered null and
void, or counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN)
c. Votes that were void (containing stickers or markings) were
counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN, etc..
4. SAQUILAYAN filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied by the RTC.
5. Questioning the denial of his Motion to Dismiss, the COMELEC
(Division) ruled in favor of SAQUILAYAN and ordered the dismissal of
the election protest. It ruled that JARO’s allegations failed to state a cause
of action, on the basis of Pena v. HRET.
* Pena v. HRET held that the bare allegations of massive fraud,
widespread intimidation and terrorism, without specification and
substantiation of where and how these occurrences took place, render the
protest fatally defective.
6. Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC En Banc,
SAQUILAYAN’s Motion to Dismiss was again dismissed, and the
Election Protest Case was ordered to proceed.
HELD:
1. The present case is similar to Miguel v. COMELEC, which the
COMELEC En Banc used as basis in ordering the Election Protest Case to
proceed.
2. IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precincts in their
respective municipalities.
3. As Miguel v. COMELEC is more recent than Pena v. HRET (as used by
the COMELEC Division), then the former should prevail in case of a
conflict.
4. Furthermore, election contests involve public interest. Technicalities and
procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constituted an
obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate.
5. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end
that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be
defeated by mere technical objections.
6. Allowing the election protest to proceed would be the best way of
removing any doubt as to who was the real candidate chosen by the
electorate.
7. Decision of COMELEC En Banc affirmed.
20 SANTOS V. COMELEC
399 SCRA 611
(PADLAN)
FACTS:
Petitioner (SANTOS) and Respondent (PANULAYA) were both candidate
for MAYOR of the Municipal of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 14,
2001 elections.
MUNICIPAL Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed PANULAYA as
Mayor.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/25

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 25 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ELECTION CONTESTS 16 TOMARONG V. LUBGUBAN 269 SCRA 624 (TAN, L.) FACTS: Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994 Barangay Elections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protest before the respective MCTC’s. The winning candidates filed their answers praying that the petitions be dismissed based on the affirmative defense that the protestants failed to attach to their petitions the required certification on non-forum shopping as provided for in SC-AC No. 04-94. The MCTC initially ruled to dismiss but deferred t o the Secretary of Justice who then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled that the certification on non-forum shopping should be required in elections contests before the MTC’s. Thus this petition under Rule 65. HELD: The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is required for election contests. Yes. The Court, citing Loyola v. Court of Appeals, said that: “We do not agree that SC-AC No. 04-94 is not applicable to election cases. There is nothing in the Circular that indicates that it does not apply to election cases. On the contrary, it expressly provides that the requirements therein, which are in addition to those in pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, ‘shall be strictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, applications or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies other the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.’ Ubi lex non distinguit ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4