Case Digest (G.R. No. 200222) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case involves Danilo F. Gatchalian as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals, Judge Ibarra S. Vigilia, and Gregorio N. Aruelo, Jr. as respondents. The events surrounding the case unfolded during the elections held on May 11, 1992, when Gatchalian and Aruelo were rival candidates for the Vice Mayor position in Balagtas, Bulacan. Following the elections, on May 13, 1992, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Gatchalian as the duly elected Vice Mayor, winning by a narrow margin of four votes. Shortly thereafter, on May 22, 1992, Aruelo contested the proclamation by filing a verified petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), designated as SPC No. 92-130, aimed at annulling Gatchalian's proclamation. Concurrently, on June 2, 1992, Aruelo filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17 in Malolos, Bulacan, under Civil Case No. 343-M-92. This protest, characterized as being filed ex abundante cautela, included a claim for damages amoun
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 200222) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Election and Proclamation:
- Danilo F. Gatchalian and Gregorio N. Aruelo, Jr. were rival candidates for the office of Vice Mayor of Balagtas, Bulacan in the May 11, 1992 elections.
- On May 13, 1992, Gatchalian was proclaimed the duly elected Vice Mayor by a margin of four votes.
Filing of Pre-Proclamation Case:
- On May 22, 1992, Aruelo filed a verified petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) docketed as SPC No. 92-130, seeking to annul Gatchalian's proclamation.
Election Protest Filed:
- On June 2, 1992, Aruelo filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 343-M-92. The protest was filed ex abundante cautela (out of an abundance of caution) due to the pending pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC. The protest also included a claim for damages in the amount of P100,000.00 for attorney's fees.
- Aruelo paid P610.00 as filing fees on the same date.
Motion to Dismiss:
- On June 10, 1992, Gatchalian received an amended summons from the trial court, giving him five days to file an answer.
- Instead of filing an answer, Gatchalian filed a motion to dismiss on June 15, 1992, on the following grounds:
- The petition was filed out of time.
- The election protest was premature due to the pending pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC.
- Aruelo failed to pay the prescribed filing fees and cash deposit upon filing the petition.
COMELEC Resolution:
- On June 17, 1992, the COMELEC denied Aruelo's pre-proclamation case.
Trial Court's Orders:
- On July 10, 1992, the trial court denied Gatchalian's motion to dismiss and ordered him to file his answer within five days.
- Gatchalian's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 3, 1992.
- On July 23, 1992, Gatchalian filed a motion for a Bill of Particulars, which was denied by the trial court on August 5, 1992.
Petition to the Court of Appeals:
- On August 6, 1992, Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 28621) with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying his motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.
- On November 24, 1992, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court and upheld the denial of Gatchalian's motion to dismiss.
Issues:
- Whether the election protest was filed within the prescribed period under Section 3, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the election protest for Aruelo's failure to pay the required filing fee of P300.00 under Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)