A.M. No. RTJ-93-935 - Roa, Sr. vs. Imbing

Complainant: Mayor Rogelio J. Roa, the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Alicia, Zamboanga del Sur, who filed an "Answer with Counter-Protest" in connection with Election Case No. 120 ("Hadji Haron Kiram vs. Mayor Rogelio J. Roa").
Respondent: Judge Fausto H. Imbing of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Pagadian City, who handled the election protest case.

The respondent Judge ordered that cash deposits be made by the parties to defray the expenses related to the protest and counter-protest:

Protestant was required to deposit P25,000.00.
Complainant, being the counter-protestant (by designation in the pleading), was required to deposit P10,000.00.

Complainant challenged the requirement, contending that he had not requested the revision or re-opening of any ballot box and that his filing was more a counterclaim for attorney's fees than a statutory counter-protest.

The deposit requirement is based on Section 10, Rule 35 of the Comelec Rules and Procedure:

It mandates that in any protest, counter-protest, or protest-in-intervention (when ballot revision is not required), the respective party, upon payment of the filing fee, make a cash deposit of P500.00, which may be increased if circumstances warrant.

A counter-protest, as defined under Section 7(b) of Rule 35, is intended for those contesting the votes received by the protestants in other precincts—a function not applicable to the complainant’s filing.

Although the pleading was titled "Answer with Counter-Protest," its content revealed that the complainant was merely counterclaiming for attorney's fees (specifically, praying that protestants pay P50,000.00 per court appearance for attorney's fees), and not impugning the votes in different precincts.
Established jurisprudence emphasizes that the substance of the pleading is what matters, not the title, thereby confirming that the complainant’s submission was not a counter-protest within the statutory meaning.

The respondent Judge maintained that, in relying on the title of the pleading, he was following the provision of Sec. 10, Rule 35 which requires a cash deposit from a counter-protestant.
Despite his honest belief and reliance on the procedural rule, the judge’s action was later scrutinized for a lack of due diligence in ascertaining the true nature of the pleading and the applicable law.
The Court recognized that while the amount of the deposit was reasonable given the review of votes in 30 precincts, the error in categorizing the nature of the filing constituted negligence.

Whether the respondent Judge was liable for gross ignorance of the law in ordering a P10,000.00 cash deposit from the complainant.

Determination if the deposit requirement under Section 10, Rule 35 of the Comelec Rules should properly apply to the complainant who did not actually file a counter-protest in the strict legal sense.
Examination of whether the error committed by the Judge in misinterpreting the pleading’s substance amounts to gross ignorance of the law necessitating more severe sanctions such as dismissal from service.