Facts:

The case involves Luz Batioco and Virgilio Gerolaga as petitioners against Hon. Pedro J.L. Bautista, the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pasay City, and Lorenzo Sta. Ana, the Clerk of Court of the same court, as respondents. The events leading to the case unfolded on October 19, 1971, when the petitioners sought to file 214 verified petitions for the exclusion of over 6,000 allegedly fictitious voters in Pasay City. This was within the 10-day period set by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for filing such petitions, which began on October 9, 1971. The petitions were prepared following a house-to-house canvass conducted by the Pasay Citizens League for Good Government and the Progresibong Kabataan ng Pasay, both authorized by the COMELEC to identify fictitious voters.

Upon presenting the petitions at 1:30 PM, the receiving clerk refused to accept them, citing the absence of proof of notice of service to the parties involved, as mandated by law. Petition...

Facts:

Overview of the Case

• This case involves petitioners Luz Batioc and Virgilio Gerolaga, who initiated an original action for a writ of mandamus.
• The petition seeks to compel respondent Judge Pedro JL. Bautista, in his capacity as Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pasay City, and Clerk of Court Lorenzo Sta. Ana to docket and process 214 verified exclusion petitions.
• These petitions concern the exclusion of more than 6,000 allegedly fictitious voters in Pasay City, which were critical to the upcoming election scheduled for November 8, 1971.

Timeline and Procedural Background

• On October 19, 1971, during regular office hours, 214 verified exclusion petitions were submitted for filing.
• The filing period was established from October 9 to October 19, 1971 under Section 240 of the Election Code of 1971 (Republic Act No. 6388).
• The petitions were prepared following a house-to-house canvass conducted by the Pasay Citizens League for Good Government and the Progresibong Kabataan ng Pasay, activities duly authorized by the Comelec to identify fictitious or non-existing persons among registered voters.
• The petitions were first presented at 1:30 p.m. of the same day.

Clerk’s Handling of the Petitions

• The receiving clerk of court refused to accept the petitions initially on the ground that they were not accompanied by the mandatory proof of notice of service as required under the law.
• Petitioners’ counsel was advised by the clerk to attach the required proof of service, under threat that failure to do so might lead to the court dismissing the petitions.
• In response, petitioners’ counsel:
• Left and returned at about 3:30 p.m. with an affidavit claimed to serve as proof for all 214 petitions.
• After the clerk deemed this affidavit non-compliant with the substantial requirements of the Election Code, he suggested preparing separate affidavits for each petition.
• The counsel complied by returning at 4:07 p.m. with individual affidavits for each of the petitions, which he sorted and attached to each respective petition.

Disruption in the Docketing Process

• The clerk directed his staff to docket the petitions; however, only a total of 21 petitions were successfully received and stamped between 4:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
• At 5:00 p.m., the clerk halted further docketing and closed the office.
• He justified this action by citing that lawyers from the Nacionalista and Liberal parties advised against filing additional petitions, referencing Section 139-a of the new Code which prohibits receiving applications for inclusion or exclusion outside of regular office hours.
• Despite attempts by petitioners’ counsel to seek intervention from the respondent judge (both personally on October 20, 1971 and in writing on October 22, 1971), the remaining 193 petitions were left undocketed.

Urgency and Need for Judicial Intervention

• Given that only 21 petitions were docketed, 193 exclusion petitions remained unprocessed, directly affecting the scheduled hearing set for October 25, 1971, at 9 A.M.
• Owing to the time-sensitive nature of the case with the imminent election day on November 8, 1971, petitioners promptly filed the present petition on October 23, 1971.
• The urgency of the matter necessitated a hearing, which was conducted on October 28, 1971.

Issue:

Whether the receiving clerk of court had the ministerial duty to receive and docket the 214 verified exclusion petitions as submitted during the prescribed office hours.

• Determination of the scope of the clerk’s administrative function regarding receipt and docketing, irrespective of subsequent physical processing delays.
• Evaluation of whether the clerk’s insistence on obtaining separate affidavits for each petition overstepped his administrative responsibilities.

Whether the statutory prohibition against receiving inclusion/exclusion petitions outside of regular office hours applies to the act of docketing petitions that were timely submitted.

• Analysis of the law's intent in prohibiting filings outside of office hours and whether this should preclude the continuation of docketing beyond office hours.

Whether the respondent judge was obligated to intervene in directing the clerk to docket the pending 193 petitions, given the clerk’s failure to complete his ministerial function.

• Consideration of the limits and extent of judicial intervention to remedy administrative shortcomings in cases affecting public interest, particularly in election-related matters.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)