Title
Garcia vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 216691
Decision Date
Jul 21, 2015
Election protest dismissed as untimely; 10-day filing period reckoned from actual proclamation date (May 14, 2013), not printed COCP date (May 15).

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188747)

Background Facts

After the election concluded, the Office of the Election Officer of Dinalupihan issued Payumo a certified copy of the printed Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation (COCP) dated May 15, 2013. Payumo lodged an election protest on May 27, 2013, claiming fraud and irregularities which he asserted invalidated the election results. Payumo contended that his protest was timely, given that the proclamation date indicated in the printed COCP was May 15, 2013. Garcia countered that she was actually proclaimed on May 14, 2013, based on a manual COCP, thus asserting that Payumo had filed his protest beyond the required ten-day period.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld Garcia's assertion, finding that her proclamation occurred on May 14, 2013. Consequently, on February 17, 2014, the RTC dismissed Payumo's protest, declaring it filed out of time as it fell beyond the ten-day reglementary period mandated by A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC rules. The RTC's order indicated its reliance on testimonies from the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) verifying Garcia's proclamation date.

Rulings of the Commission on Elections

Payumo appealed the RTC’s dismissal to the Comelec. The Comelec First Division issued a resolution on September 10, 2014, reversing the RTC’s decision, asserting Payumo's good faith reliance on the official printed COCP that listed May 15, 2013, as his basis for filing the protest. Subsequently, on January 29, 2015, the Comelec En Banc upheld the First Division's ruling, emphasizing that it would constitute injustice to hold Payumo accountable for a proclamation date he had no knowledge of at the time of filing.

Main Issue

The central issue in this case centers on whether Payumo's election protest was filed within the designated timeframe. Garcia insists the correct start date for the ten-day period is May 14, 2013, while Payumo argues it is May 15, 2013, based on his receipt of the printed COCP.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petition, reinstating the RTC's dismissal of Payumo's protest. It determined that Garcia was proclaimed the winner on May 14, 2013, supported by the testimonies from the MBOC. The Court affirmed that the date of proclamation is pivotal for commencing the ten-day window for filing electoral protests as stipulated in the applicable election contest rules.

Legal Framework

The Court referenced Rule 2, Section 7 of A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC, which stipulates that the election protest must be filed within a non-extendible ten-day period from the proclamation date. The Court stated that this time frame is jurisdictional and that any violation results in the ousting of the court’s jurisdiction over the case. It reiterated the importance of strict compliance due to the time-sensitivity of election procedures.

Clarification of Juri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.