G.R. No. 250584 - Calera vs. Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc.

This case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in conjunction with Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner Maria Angela S. Garcia seeks to annul Comelec’s resolutions issued on September 10, 2014, and January 29, 2015, which reinstated the election protest of private respondent Jose Alejandre P. Payumo III and effectively reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the protest as being filed out of time.

Garcia and Payumo were candidates for the mayoralty race of Dinalupihan, Bataan during the May 13, 2013 national and local elections.
At the close of the polls, Garcia was proclaimed the winner by garnering 31,138 votes compared to Payumo’s 13,202.
The electoral process involved issuance of a Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation (COCP) in two forms:

A printed COCP bearing the date May 15, 2013, which was disseminated to Payumo.
A manual COCP, received solely by Garcia, which indicated the proclamation occurred on May 14, 2013.

On May 27, 2013, Payumo filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Balanga, Bataan (Case No. EAC [AEL] 11-2014).
Payumo based his timely filing on the printed COCP, which indicated the proclamation date as May 15, 2013, thereby asserting that the ten-day reglementary period expired on May 25, 2013.
Garcia countered that she was proclaimed on May 14, 2013 per the manual COCP and the testimonies of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC), thereby alleging that the protest was filed beyond the mandatory period.

The RTC held a motion hearing on July 1, 2013, with the MBOC members testifying that Garcia was proclaimed on May 14, 2013 at approximately 5:00 p.m.
On February 17, 2014, the RTC dismissed Payumo’s protest as being filed one day beyond the non-extendible ten-day period required by Rule 2, Section 7 (in relation to Section 12 (c)) of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC.
Payumo appealed the dismissal before the Commission on Elections (Comelec), arguing that he relied in good faith on the printed COCP which stated May 15, 2013.
The Comelec First Division, in its September 10, 2014 Resolution, reversed the RTC decision and held that Payumo’s appeal was granted on the ground that he could only rely on the official printed document furnished to him.
Later, the Comelec En Banc, in its Resolution dated January 29, 2015, affirmed the First Division’s ruling, emphasizing that the calculation of the ten-day period should be based on the information actually received by Payumo (i.e., the printed COCP).

Whether or not the election protest filed by Payumo was filed within the mandatory and non-extendible ten-day reglementary period.

The dispute centers on the correct date from which the ten-day period should be reckoned.
Garcia advocates that the true date of proclamation is May 14, 2013 as indicated by the manual COCP and the testimony of the MBOC.
Payumo maintains that, in good faith, his reliance on the printed COCP (dated May 15, 2013) justified his filing on May 27, 2013.

Whether the reliance on the printed COCP or the manual COCP should govern the reckoning of the time period for filing an election protest.

The printed COCP is the document furnished to the losing candidate, whereas the manual COCP – containing the actual proclamation date – was only provided to the winning candidate.
The issue extends to whether the candidate’s awareness (or lack thereof) of the proclamation date through proper channels affects the computation of the ten-day period.