G.R. No. 91718 - Gallardo vs. Rimando

Gil C. Gallardo (petitioner) and Franco F. Rimando (respondent) were rival candidates for the office of Municipal Mayor of Naguilian, La Union, in the elections held on January 18, 1988.
Rimando was proclaimed the winner by a narrow margin of 12 votes on January 19, 1988.

On January 22, 1988, Gallardo filed a pre-proclamation petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking annulment of Rimando’s proclamation.
COMELEC dismissed Gallardo’s petition on December 8, 1988.
Gallardo then appealed this decision on December 12, 1988 (Gallardo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 85974) and received the Supreme Court’s final dismissal of the petition on June 23, 1989.

On June 30, 1989, Gallardo filed an election protest, designated as “Gil C. Gallardo vs. Franco F. Rimando,” in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 in Bauang, La Union.
Rimando filed a motion to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not filed within the ten-day period after the proclamation, as required by Section 51 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Initially, Judge Avelino Quintos denied Rimando’s motion; however, upon a motion for reconsideration by Rimando, Judge Quintos reversed his prior decision on September 19, 1989, dismissing the protest.
Gallardo’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on November 24, 1989.
Gallardo then filed a notice of appeal on December 7, 1989, and a petition for review on December 18, 1989.

The central issue concerned whether Gallardo’s election protest was filed on time.
Critical provisions involved included Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code, which mandates the filing of a protest within ten days after the proclamation of the election results, and Section 248, which suspends the running of this period upon filing a pre-proclamation petition.

Whether the election protest was filed within the reglementary period stipulated by Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code after considering the suspension effect of the pre-proclamation petition.
Whether the computation of the ten-day period resumed only after the final resolution of the pre-proclamation case.

Whether Judge Quintos’ interpretation of Section 246—regarding the finality and executory nature of the COMELEC’s decision—was correct and applicable in barring the filing of an election protest.
Whether the absence of a restraining order from the Supreme Court on the COMELEC decision should affect the candidate’s right to file an election contest under Section 251.

Whether the suspension provided under Section 248 effectively paused the reglementary period for filing the election protest until the Commissioner’s decision became final and executory.
How the timeline of proceedings (including the final Supreme Court resolution of the pre-proclamation petition on June 23, 1989) influenced the computation of the filing deadline.