Case Digest (G.R. No. 84297)
Facts:
Carmelo F. Lazatin v. The House Electoral Tribunal and Lorenzo G. Timbol, G.R. No. 84297, promulgated December 08, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.In the May 11, 1987 congressional elections, Carmelo F. Lazatin (petitioner) and Lorenzo G. Timbol (private respondent) were rival candidates for Representative of the First District of Pampanga. During local canvassing Timbol objected to certain returns; the Municipal Board of Canvassers did not rule on his objections, so he brought the matter to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). On May 19, 1987 COMELEC ordered suspension of proclamation but on May 26, 1987 it directed the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed and on May 27, 1987 Lazatin was proclaimed.
Timbol filed before COMELEC a petition to declare Lazatin's proclamation void ab initio and later a petition to prohibit Lazatin from assuming office; the latter was not acted upon, and Lazatin assumed office on June 30, 1987. On September 15, 1987 COMELEC declared Lazatin’s proclamation void ab initio. Lazatin challenged that COMELEC resolution before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 80007, and on January 25, 1988 the Court set aside COMELEC’s revocation of the proclamation.
After the decision in G.R. No. 80007, on February 8, 1988 Timbol filed an election protest in the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET) (HRET Case No. 46). Lazatin moved to dismiss for tardiness under Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881). The HRET denied the motion, ruling the protest was timely under Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules (which prescribed filing within 15 days from the Rules’ effectivity or from proclamation). Lazatin sought relief from this Court by a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition (seeking annulment of the HRET’s May 2, 1988 resolution and its July 29, 1988 denial of reconsideration).
Separately, Timbol had sought provisional relief (TRO/preliminary injunction) in the HRET to enjoin Lazatin from exercising the congressional office; on May 5, 1988 the HRET deferred action, and on May 30, 1988 it d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the HRET acquire jurisdiction over Timbol’s protest because it was timely filed under the HRET Rules, or was it barred by Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code?
- Did the Supreme Court have grounds to annul the HRET’s deferral and denial of provisional relief (TRO/preliminary injunction) enjoining Lazatin from performing his d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)