Case Digest (G.R. No. 86647)
Facts:
Rep. Virgilio P. Robles v. Hon. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Romeo L. Santos, G.R. No. 86647, February 05, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rep. Virgilio P. Robles and private respondent Romeo L. Santos were opposing candidates for Congressman of the First District of Caloocan City in the May 11, 1987 elections; Robles was proclaimed winner on December 23, 1987. On January 5, 1988, Santos filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) asking for recounts in 320 contested precincts; Robles filed an Answer on January 14, 1988 raising, among other defenses, lack of residence and tardiness of the protest.
On August 15, 1988 the HRET set the revision (recount) to commence September 1, 1988 and ordered Santos to identify the initial 25% of precincts to be revised in accordance with Section 18 of the Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. The revision of the initial 75 precincts (25%) was completed on September 7, 1988. On September 8, 1988 Robles filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Revision; on September 12 Santos filed a Motion to Withdraw Protest on the unrevised precincts and to set the case for hearing; on September 14 Santos filed an Urgent Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest.
The HRET did not act immediately on those motions but on September 19, 1988 issued a resolution noting Robles’ and Santos’ motions and granting Santos’ Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest, directing resumption of revision on September 26. Robles moved on September 20 to treat his opposition as a motion for reconsideration; the HRET on September 22 directed Santos to comment and suspended the scheduled resumption. The HRET denied Robles’ motion for reconsideration on January 26, 1989.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for temporary restraining order on February 1, 1989 contesting the HRET resolutions of September 19, 1988 and January 26, 1989; the Court required respondents to comment (Feb. 2), noted various motions and filings, and entertained a supplemental petition (filed Feb. 22, 1989) which also questioned a HRET February 16, 1989 resolution and a partial determination under Section 18 that showed Santos recovered 267 votes after the first 25% revision. The record shows revision was resumed February 20, 1989 and terminated March 2, 1989. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case.
Several precedents and principles were invoked by the Court in reaching its decision, including Jimenez v. Nazareno, Santos v. Court of Appeals, Paramount Insurance Corp. v. Luna, and the line of cases affirming the exclusive and plenary character of electoral-tribunal jurisdiction such as Angara v. Electoral Commission, Veloso v. Board of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the filing by Romeo L. Santos of a Motion to Withdraw Protest on unrevised precincts divest the HRET of jurisdiction over the protest before the tribunal acted on the motion?
- Did the HRET act with grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction in granting Santos’ Motion to Recall and in ordering resumption of revision?
- Did the HRET’s partial determination under Section 18 (showing a recovery of 267 votes for Santos after the 25% revision) deprive ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)