Facts:

The case involves petitioner Fernando T. Baltazar and respondent Catalina Bagasina, both candidates for the position of municipal mayor in Sasmuan, Pampanga, during the local elections held on May 11, 1998. After the canvassing of votes, the Municipal Board of Canvassers declared Baltazar as the duly elected mayor. However, on June 29, 1998, Bagasina filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga, recorded as Election Case No. G-898. The court served summons to Baltazar on July 7, 1998.

In response, Baltazar filed an Answer with Counter-Protest, which Bagasina contested by submitting a Motion to Expunge from the Records, arguing that Baltazar's filing was three days late, beyond the prescribed five-day period. The RTC granted Bagasina's motion and declared that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain Baltazar's late filing. Baltazar's motion for reconsideration, filed on September 16, 1998, was denied, prompting him to file a p

...

Facts:

Election Background

• Petitioner Fernando T. Baltazar and private respondent Catalina Bagasina were candidates for the position of municipal mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga in the May 11, 1998 local elections.
• After canvassing votes, the Municipal Board of Canvassers declared Fernando T. Baltazar as the duly elected mayor.

Filing of the Election Protest and Subsequent Pleadings

• On June 29, 1998, private respondent filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga (Election Case No. G-898).
• Petitioner was served summons on July 7, 1998.
• Petitioner subsequently filed his Answer with Counter-Protest with the trial court.
• Private respondent moved to expunge the Answer with Counter-Protest on the alleged ground that it was filed three days past the five-day reglementary period.
• The trial court granted the motion to expunge, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a late filing, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on September 16, 1998.

Petition for Certiorari before COMELEC

• On October 15, 1998, petitioner elevated his cause by filing a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, challenging the trial court’s decision.
• Petitioner contended his Answer with Counter-Protest was filed on July 13, 1998, supported by a certification by the Operations Manager of the Philpost Mail Management Corporation.
• The registry receipt of the answer showed a stamp dated July 14, 1998, and the envelope was postmarked July 15, 1998.
• Public respondent COMELEC later issued a resolution on September 14, 1999, dismissing the petition, emphasizing that the postmark on the envelope (July 15, 1998) conclusively indicated the date of mailing.

Additional Allegations and Context

• Petitioner alleged due process violations, claiming that the RTC struck the Answer with Counter-Protest without proper notice and hearing, and that its filing was within the allowable period.
• The petitioner further argued that the COMELEC and the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction based on the mailing date.
• The record also revealed a pattern of delay by petitioner, including failure to claim court orders and pleadings served via registered mail (as seen with unclaimed pleadings and mail items).
• The case was part of a broader controversy including another petition for certiorari (SPR No. 47-99) still pending before the COMELEC, highlighting the potential expiration of the contested office’s term.
• Emphasis was placed on the importance of expedited resolution of election-related disputes as stipulated under the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC rules.

Issue:

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in sustaining the trial court’s ruling which expunged petitioner’s Answer with Counter-Protest on the ground of tardiness.

• Whether the filing date should be determined by the certification from the Philpost Mail Management Corporation (which indicated posting on July 13, 1998) or by the postmark on the envelope (July 15, 1998).
• Whether the petitioner was denied due process when his filing was struck out without a prior hearing or adequate notice.
• Whether the late filing, being three days beyond the mandated five-day reglementary period following service of summons on July 7, 1998, should render the petition null and void irrespective of any certification issued.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)