Facts:

In the case of Evelyn Abeja vs. Judge Federico Tanada and Rosauro Radovan (deceased), the petitioner, Evelyn Abeja, contested the results of the May 11, 1992 municipal mayoral elections in Pagbilao, Quezon, where she had lost to Rosauro Radovan, who received 6,215 votes to her 5,951 votes. Following Radovan's proclamation, Abeja filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City under Election Case No. 92-1, challenging the results from 22 precincts. Radovan, on June 5, 1992, countered by filing an answer along with a counter-protest for 36 precincts. During pre-trial, Radovan's counsel requested that the revision of the 36 precincts only occur if Abeja led by at least one vote after revising the 22 precincts. The trial court deemed this request premature initially.

As the revision process for the protested precincts concluded in September 1992, Abeja urged Radovan to initiate the revision for the counter-protested precincts, but Radovan refused, ass

...

Facts:

Background of the Election Contest

• Petitioner Evelyn Abeja and private respondent Rosauro Radovan were contenders for the municipal mayoralty of Pagbilao, Quezon in the May 11, 1992 national elections.
• The official returns credited Radovan with 6,215 votes against Abeja’s 5,951 votes, leading to the proclamation of the former as the winner.

Filing of the Election Protest and Counter-Protest

• Shortly after the proclamation, Abeja filed an election contest (Election Case No. 92-1) with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City.
• The protest covered 22 precincts while Radovan, through his counsel, filed an Answer accompanied by a counter-protest covering 36 precincts.
• Radovan’s counsel proposed that the 36 precincts should be revised only if, after the revision of the 22 protested precincts, Abeja was shown to be leading by at least one vote.
• The trial court declared discussion on that issue premature during the pre-trial stage.

The Revision Process and Subsequent Motions

• The revision of the 22 protested precincts was completed in September 1992, and Abeja subsequently urged Radovan to commence the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts by paying the required fees.
• Radovan refused to initiate the revision, maintaining that revision of the counter-protested precincts was conditional on a demonstrated lead by at least one vote after the first revision.
• Abeja moved to have the counter-protest deemed withdrawn, and, in a later manifestation on September 29, 1992, she reiterated that the withdrawal should take effect once the Board of Revisors submitted its final report.

Role of the Trial Judges and Orders Issued

• Judge Ludovico Lopez, then presiding, made remarks during a hearing in October 1992 about halting further revision once a ruling on the 22 precincts was rendered, though no formal order or specific details were cited.
• In April 1993, the trial court noted that all pending incidents including the submission of evidence and the Board of Revisors’ report were complete for resolution.
• On August 18, 1993, shortly before his reassignment, Judge Lopez issued an order with rulings on the 22 contested precincts, emphasizing a careful private review of the ballots without providing an overall summation of votes or declaring a winner.

Motion to Determine Votes and Subsequent Judicial Orders

• On August 27, 1993, Abeja filed a “Motion to Determine Votes, To Proclaim Winner and to Allow Assumption of Office,” based on her computation that she led by 281 votes.
• Private respondents (substituted following Radovan’s death on June 13, 1993 by Vice-Mayor Conrado de Rama and Ediltrudes Radovan, his widow) opposed the motion and reiterated their position regarding the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts.
• On September 21, 1993, Judge Federico Tanada denied Abeja’s motion on the ground of prematurity, stating that the 36 precincts had yet to be revised.
• A subsequent order dated October 18, 1993, by Judge Tanada denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the revision committee to revise the results of the 36 counter-protested precincts on November 10, 1993.

Temporary Injunction and Pending Revision

• Abeja filed a petition for certiorari on November 8, 1993, challenging the orders of Judge Tanada.
• A temporary restraining order was issued on November 17, 1993, to stop further revision of the 36 precincts, though it was served on November 19, 1993, after revision of 11 ballot boxes had been completed.

Issue:

Whether private respondents should still be allowed to revise the 36 precincts subject to the counter-protest despite their prolonged inaction.

• The issue centers on whether the delay and insistence on a conditional revision (dependent on the outcome of the 22 precincts) amounts to a waiver or abandonment of their right to a counter-revision.
• It also questions the propriety of introducing new evidence (the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts) after the court has effectively rendered a decision based on the revised 22 precincts.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)