Facts:

The case centers on Joenar Vargas Agravante (petitioner) who contested the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in EAC No. 167-2018-B, concerning the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections in Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur. Agravante was elected as the Punong Barangay after securing 789 votes against his opponent, Joseph Amata Blance (private respondent), who garnered 786 votes. Following the election, Blance, dissatisfied with the results, filed an election protest on May 23, 2018, with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Goa. Agravante responded by filing an Answer with a Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses on May 30, 2018, which included a Counter-Protest.

Subsequently, the MTC held a preliminary conference on June 25, 2018, where a revision committee was formed. After the court's revision of the ballots, it ruled on October 15, 2018, that the evidence not formally offered could not be considered, leading to Blance being declared the winner wi

...

Facts:

Background of the Election Contest

• Candidates: Joenar Vargas Agravante (petitioner) and Joseph Amata Blance (private respondent) contested for the position of Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur in the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE).
• Vote Count: Initially, Agravante obtained 789 votes while Blance garnered 786 votes, with Agravante being proclaimed the winner by a narrow margin.

Filing of the Protest and Subsequent Proceedings

• Election Protest: Dissatisfied with the election result, Blance filed a protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Goa, Camarines Sur on May 23, 2018.
• Responsive Pleadings:
• Agravante filed his Answer with a Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses on May 30, 2018.
• Subsequently, Blance submitted his Answer to the Counterclaim/Counter-Protest on June 6, 2018.
• Pre-Trial Conference: A preliminary conference was held on June 25, 2018 during which a revision committee was constituted and the parties agreed to present their documentary evidence simultaneously to expedite the resolution of the case.

MTC Decision and the Application of the Formal Offer of Evidence Rule

• MTC Order: On October 15, 2018, the MTC promulgated its Decision granting the protest.
• The Order set aside Agravante’s initial proclamation as the winning candidate and declared Blance the duly elected Punong Barangay based on the revised vote count.
• Evidence Issue:
• The MTC excluded certain ballots from the official count because they were not “formally offered” in evidence by either party, citing Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
• Post-revision, the vote tally was 789 for Blance versus 784 for Agravante.

COMELEC Decisions and the Procedural Lapses

• Appeal to COMELEC Division:
• Agravante appealed the MTC decision to the COMELEC First Division.
• On July 2, 2019, the COMELEC Division dismissed his appeal on technical grounds.
• Agravante’s brief was deemed not filed because he failed to include an affidavit of mailing, registry receipt, and a written explanation for the service by mail as required by the relevant rules.
• Motion for Reconsideration and the COMELEC En Banc Resolution:
• Agravante subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
• On September 20, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion, affirming the dismissal of the appeal.
• Arguments Presented:
• Petitioner (Agravante) contested that the dismissal was predicated on technicalities and claimed that he had substantially complied with the documentary requirements.
• He further argued that had the excluded ballots been considered, the outcome might have favored him.
• The COMELEC and its Office of the Solicitor General maintained that strict compliance with the rules governing the formal offer of evidence is mandatory and that the procedural lapses cannot be excused by mere inadvertence.

Issue:

• Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by dismissing Agravante’s appeal on the ground of his failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the law.
• Whether Agravante is entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a status quo ante order, or a writ of preliminary injunction pending the outcome of the dispute.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)