Case Digest (G.R. No. 217012)
Facts:
Wigberto "Toby" R. Tanada, Jr. v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 217012, March 01, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court, is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari attacking the HRET Resolutions of 25 September 2014 and 22 January 2015 dismissing petitioner Wigberto Tanada’s election protest ad cautelam in HRET Case No. 13-018 (EP).For the 2013 election for Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Quezon, three persons filed Certificates of Candidacy: Wigberto R. Tanada, Jr. (Liberal), Angelina D. Tan (NPC), and Alvin John S. Tanada (Lapiang Manggagawa). In October 2012 Wigberto petitioned the COMELEC to cancel Alvin John’s COC (SPA No. 13-056) and to declare him a nuisance candidate (SPA No. 13-057); the petitions were consolidated. On January 29, 2013 the COMELEC First Division dismissed the consolidated petitions. On April 25, 2013 the COMELEC En Banc denied Wigberto’s motion for reconsideration in SPA No. 13-057 (nuisance) but granted it in SPA No. 13-056, cancelling Alvin John’s COC for false material representation (residency). Wigberto attempted to file further motions to admit newly discovered evidence, but those motions were either untimely or unacted upon.
At the May 13, 2013 elections, the ballots still contained Alvin John’s name. After canvass, Angelina Tan was proclaimed (84,782 votes) over Wigberto (80,698) and Alvin John (7,038). On May 16, 2013 Wigberto petitioned the Quezon Provincial Board of Canvassers to credit Alvin John’s votes to him; the PBOC denied this request and proclaimed Angelina. Wigberto filed an ad cautelam certiorari, mandamus and prohibition petition with the Supreme Court on May 27, 2013 challenging the COMELEC En Banc’s April 25, 2013 resolution and seeking a declaration that Alvin John was a nuisance candidate and crediting of Alvin John’s votes to him. While that special action was pending, Wigberto filed an election protest ad cautela with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) on May 30, 2013.
Subsequently, on June 28, 2013 the COMELEC Second Division annulled Angelina’s proclamation and directed the Quezon PBOC to credit Alvin John’s votes to Wigberto; the COMELEC En Banc later affirmed that annulment, but Angelina had already taken her oath and assumed office, rendering the proclamation issue moot before final relief could be given. On October 22, 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed Wigberto’s ad cautelam special action (G.R. Nos. 207199-200), holding that, because Angelina had been proclaimed, taken her oath and assumed office, the HRET—the tribunal constitutionally charged with contests relating to Members’ election, returns and qualifications—had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the canvass and proclamation issues and Wigberto should pursue relief before the HRET.
The HRET directed Angelina to answer; Angelina filed an answer with affirmative defenses and a counter-protest alleging Wigberto’s pleading was deficient and that Wigberto engaged in forum-shopping. Wigberto replied, insisting the Supreme Court had already told him to bring the nuisance-candidate issue to the HRET. The HRET set oral arguments and, on 25 September 2014, promulgated the assailed Resolution: it found Wigberto was not guilty of forum-shopping but dismissed the election protest ad cautelam as insufficient in form and substance (Rule 16, 2011 HRET Rules), and held it lacked jurisdiction to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate because Alvin John was not a Member of the House and the HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to contests relating to Members (Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution; Rule 15, 2011 H...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the HRET gravely abuse its discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by limiting its jurisdiction in election protests as defined by the Constitution, law, and jurisprudence?
- Did the HRET gravely abuse its discretion by declaring that an election protest is limited to the opening of ballot boxes and the revision of ballots?
- Did the HRET gravely abuse its discretion by holding that it cannot look into the fraudulent fielding of a nuisance candidate because it has no power to review, modify, or reverse the COMELEC...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)