Title
Batioco vs. Bautista
Case
G.R. No. L-34253
Decision Date
Oct 29, 1971
Petitioners sought to exclude 6,000+ alleged fictitious voters in Pasay City. Clerk of court delayed docketing 193 petitions despite timely filing. SC granted mandamus, ruling clerk had ministerial duty to accept petitions presented during office hours.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34253)

Facts:

  1. Filing of Exclusion Petitions: Petitioners Luz Batioco and Virgilio Gerolaga sought to file 214 verified petitions for the exclusion of over 6,000 allegedly fictitious voters in Pasay City. These petitions were prepared and filed after a house-to-house canvass conducted by authorized groups to identify non-existing or fictitious voters.

  2. Timely Presentation: The petitions were presented for filing on October 19, 1971, the last day of the 10-day period allowed under Section 118 of the Election Code of 1971 (Republic Act No. 6388). They were first presented at 1:30 p.m. during regular office hours.

  3. Refusal to Accept Petitions: The receiving clerk initially refused to accept the petitions, citing the absence of proof of notice of service to the parties, as required by law. Petitioners' counsel was advised to attach the required proof of service.

  4. Affidavit of Service: Petitioners' counsel returned at 3:30 p.m. with an affidavit intended to serve as proof of service for all 214 petitions. However, the clerk of court, Lorenzo Sta. Ana, deemed the affidavit insufficient and suggested preparing separate affidavits for each petition.

  5. Delayed Docketing: Petitioners' counsel returned at 4:07 p.m. with separate affidavits for each petition. However, only 21 petitions were docketed by 4:45 p.m. The remaining 193 petitions were left undocketed as the office closed at 5:00 p.m.

  6. Intervention of Political Parties: Lawyers from the Nacionalista and Liberal parties intervened, instructing the clerk of court not to receive any further petitions after office hours, citing Section 139-a of the Election Code.

  7. Efforts to Resolve: Petitioners sought the intervention of the executive judge, Pedro JL. Bautista, but their efforts were unsuccessful, leading to the filing of the present petition for mandamus.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Ministerial Duty of Clerks of Court: Clerks of court have a ministerial duty to accept and docket petitions presented during regular office hours, even if the physical docketing process extends beyond office hours. The prohibition against receiving petitions outside office hours does not apply to petitions duly presented within office hours.

  2. Proof of Service: The requirement of proof of service is satisfied if the petitions contain sufficient allegations of notice. The clerk of court cannot impose additional requirements or delay the docketing process based on perceived defects in the proof of service.

  3. Judicial Oversight: Judges have a ministerial duty to ensure that petitions are docketed and processed in a timely manner, especially in election cases where urgency is paramount. Failure to do so undermines the integrity of the electoral process.

  4. Public Interest: The timely resolution of exclusion petitions is crucial to ensuring the integrity of the voters' list and preventing electoral fraud. Courts must act expeditiously to address such petitions before election day.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.