Case Summary (G.R. No. 264029)
Procedural History
Joseph Amata Blance filed an election protest with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Goa, Camarines Sur, contesting the election results. Both parties filed pleadings and counter-protests. After the revision of ballots and evidentiary conferences, the MTC rendered a decision on October 15, 2018, setting aside Agravante’s proclamation and declaring Blance the winner by a margin of five votes. Agravante appealed this decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division.
MTC Decision and Evidentiary Issue
The MTC based its ruling on Administrative Matter No. 07-4-15-SC, Rule 13, Section 2, which mandates that no evidence shall be considered unless formally offered in court. Agravante failed to formally offer in evidence 12 ballots, which the court consequently excluded. Similarly, 7 ballots from Blance were also excluded for the same reason. Upon excluding these ballots, the MTC revised the count, declaring Blance the winner.
COMELEC First Division and En Banc Rulings
The COMELEC First Division dismissed Agravante’s appeal for failure to file his appellate brief properly within the prescribed period, specifically citing his noncompliance with mandatory procedural requirements for proof of service via registered mail. His brief was deemed not filed as he failed to submit an affidavit of mailing, registry receipts, and a written explanation for service by mail as required under Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, and Section 3, Rule 12 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Agrivante filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc for failure to raise new substantial issues or to justify his procedural lapses. The En Banc affirmed the dismissal grounded on strict compliance with procedural requisites and emphasized the mandatory nature of these rules.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Agrivante contended that the dismissal by the COMELEC En Banc constituted grave abuse of discretion because he allegedly made substantial compliance through the subsequent filing of proof of service and explanations. He further argued that the MTC erred in excluding ballots not formally offered, contending that these ballots might have changed the election outcome in his favor. He cited the 1958 Supreme Court ruling in Reforma v. De Luna to support his position on the consideration of such ballots. Agrivante also requested the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the adverse rulings.
Respondent COMELEC’s Position
The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the dismissal was proper due to petitioner’s failure to perfect his appeal according to the clear and mandatory procedural requirements under applicable rules. It argued that procedural requirements are not subject to mere liberality without compelling reasons, and that petitioner failed to present such justification. The COMELEC also asserted that petitioner had not established the requisites for injunctive relief.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Agravante's appeal on procedural grounds.
- Whether Agravante is entitled to a temporary restraining order, status quo ante order, or preliminary injunction.
Jurisdiction and Standard for Certiorari
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is limited to reviewing acts committed without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion denotes an arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious exercise of judgment negating the performance of a positive duty imposed by law.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Procedural Compliance
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Agravante’s appeal. It underscored that the submission of proof of service requirements—an affidavit of mailing, registry receipt, and a justification for mail service—are mandatory under Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, and COMELEC procedural rules. Petitioner’s failure to initially comply with these requirements resulted in his brief being considered as not filed, warranting dismissal under Section 9(b), Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules.
The Court also confirmed that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was properly denied because it did not raise new substantial issues nor justified his lapses. The Court emphasized that procedural rules must be observed strictly to ensure orderly administration of justice, and compliance with rules on appeal is a prerequisite to avail oneself of statutory privileges such as the right to appeal.
Substantial Compliance and Liberal Application of Rules
The Court acknowledged that rules may be relaxed only when justified by strong and compelling reasons. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause beyond inadvertence that could warrant the suspension of mandatory procedural requirements. The Court reiterated that liberality is an extreme exception, only allowed when equity demands.
Evidence Not Formally Offered: Application of Rule 13, Section 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC
The Court rejected petitioner’s reliance on the 1958 case of Reforma v. De Luna, explaining that the case was decided under the now superseded Revised Election Code and before the promulgation of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which specifically requires formal offer of evidence for consideration by courts.
Under Rule 13, Section 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests), no evidence not formally offered shall be considered. This rule aims to protect due process by ensuring opposing parties can review evidence submitted against them and interpose objections.
The Court held that the MTC correctly excluded ballots not formally offered by petitioner, including the 12 ballots Agravante failed to offer. This strict compliance aligns with the Court’s exclusive rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution which confers authority to promulgate procedural rules for courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
Due Process and Formal Offer of Evidence
The Court, supported by the concurring opinion of Justice Caguioa, explained that the formal offer of evidence is integral to the fundamental constitutional guarantee of due process. It informs the court of the evidence’s purpose and affords the opposing party the opportunity to object. Evidence merely marked for identification but not formally offered has no probative value and must be excluded.
The requirement facilitates judicial efficiency and appellate review by limiting the evidence the courts must consider to those duly offered and admitted.
On Petitioner’s Alleged True Victory
Petitioner’s claim of being the true winner was based on the speculative statement by the MTC that excluded ballots might have altered the results; however, the Court regarded this as obiter dictum and emphasized that courts must decide cases only on evidence properly admitted. The exclusion of ballots was uniform, ap
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 264029)
Background and Parties Involved
- Joenar Vargas Agravante (petitioner) and Joseph Amata Blance (private respondent) contested the position of Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur during the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE).
- Petitioner was proclaimed the winner by a narrow margin of three votes (789 votes to 786 votes).
- Private respondent filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Goa on May 23, 2018, challenging the election results.
- Both parties submitted respective pleadings, answers, counterclaims, and counter-protests, with a revision committee constituted to expedite evidence presentation and resolution.
Proceedings Before the Municipal Trial Court
- On October 15, 2018, the MTC promulgated a Decision granting the election protest, setting aside petitioner’s proclamation, and declaring private respondent the winner by five votes after revision (789 votes to 784).
- The MTC applied Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which mandates that evidence must be formally offered before the court will consider it.
- Petitioner failed to formally offer 12 ballots in evidence, leading to their exclusion; similarly, 7 ballots from private respondent were also excluded on the same basis.
- The exclusion of evidence without formal offer influenced the final vote count that favored private respondent.
Proceedings Before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Division
- Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC First Division.
- On July 2, 2019, the COMELEC Division dismissed the appeal due to petitioner’s failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements:
- Petitioner did not submit an affidavit of mailing, registry receipt as proof of service, nor a written explanation for service by mail as required under relevant Rules of Court and COMELEC Rules.
- Consequently, petitioner’s brief was deemed not filed, leading to dismissal under Section 9(b), Rule 22 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Proceedings Before the COMELEC En Banc
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, asserting substantial compliance and alleging procedural lapses were inadvertent.
- On September 20, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal by the COMELEC Division.
- The En Banc ruled:
- Petitioner failed to show valid justification or provide controverting evidence for noncompliance.
- Submission of documentary requirements is mandatory, and noncompliance is a valid ground for dismissal.
- The motion raised no new or substantial issues warranting reversal.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with law.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to temporary restraining order (TRO), status quo ante order, or writ of preliminary injunction.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
- The Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, is limited to cases where the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Grave abuse of discretion is characterized as a whimsical, arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion resulting in refusal or evasion of a positive legal duty.
- Mere abuse of discretion does not suffice; grave abuse must be firmly established to warrant judicial interference.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Procedural Noncompliance and Dismissal
- The COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse in dismissing petitioner’s appeal, as dismissal was supported by law and records.
- Petitioner’s failure to submit essential documents (affidavit of mailing, registry receipt, written explanation) constituted noncompliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the Rules of