Case Digest (G.R. No. 56598)
Facts:
Cornelio R. Calabig v. Honorable Florentino M. Villanueva and Venerando Baldemor, G.R. No. 56598, March 15, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Cuevas, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cornelio R. Calabig was the KBL candidate for Mayor of Paete, Laguna in the January 30, 1980 elections; respondent Venerando Baldemor was the Nacionalista candidate for the same office. After the votes were tallied Calabig appeared to have won by two votes, was proclaimed on February 11, 1980 and sworn into office March 3, 1980. On February 20, 1980 Baldemor filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna, Branch V (docketed Election Case No. 2), alleging massive fraud and related irregularities.
Calabig filed his answer on February 22, 1980 denying the allegations and counter-protesting, asserting among other defenses that Baldemor was disqualified because Comelec had denied due course to Baldemor’s certificate of candidacy in PDC No. 67 (a petition by Isaac Bathan filed January 15, 1980). The Commission on Elections (Comelec) issued Resolution No. 8544 on January 28, 1980 denying Baldemor’s certificate of candidacy. Baldemor, joined by other local NP candidates, filed a certiorari petition (G.R. No. 42426) against the Comelec and sought a restraining order; this Court issued a restraining order which resulted in the counting of Baldemor’s votes (but Calabig still led by two votes).
Calabig sought leave to file an amended answer that amplified and elaborated the disqualification allegations already raised in the original answer and asked that the court conduct a preliminary hearing on Baldemor’s disqualification (and hear related quo warranto proceedings) before any revision of ballots. After pleadings and oppositions, the trial judge, Hon. Florentino M. Villanueva, issued an order dated April 1, 1981 denying admission of Calabig’s amended answer and set the revision of ballots for April 13, 1981. Calabig filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court, claiming grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the denial of the amendment and alleging that the judge had prejudged Baldemor’s disqualification and should be inhibited.
The Supreme Court required respondents to comment (resolution April 28, 1981), enjoined Comelec from enforcing its Resolution No. 8544, and thereafter gave the petition due course (resolution June 11, 1981) and received memoranda and supplemental pleadings. The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, directed the Siniloan RTC (where the judge had been transferred) to proceed immediately with the trial of Ele...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to admit his Amended Answer?
- Was petitioner entitled to a preliminary hearing and decision on respondent Baldemor’s disqualification before any revision of ballots or continuation of the election protest?
- Is petitioner’s motion to inhibit Judge Villanue...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)