Case Summary (G.R. No. 107979)
Legal Proceedings Initiation
On May 22, 1992, Aruelo filed a verified petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), seeking to annul Gatchalian's proclamation, documented as SPC No. 92-130. Following this, he submitted an election protest to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17 in Malolos, Bulacan, under Civil Case No. 343-M-92, asserting that his filing was precautionary (ex abundante cautela) due to the pending pre-proclamation case. Aruelo also sought damages of P100,000 in attorney fees and paid P610 in filing fees on June 2, 1992.
Responses and Court Orders
Instead of answering the election protest, Gatchalian filed a motion to dismiss on June 15, 1992, citing lateness, a pending pre-proclamation case with COMELEC, and alleged failure by Aruelo to pay the proper filing fees. Aruelo opposed this motion, and after the COMELEC denied Aruelo's pre-proclamation case on June 17, 1992, the trial court denied Gatchalian's motion to dismiss on July 10, 1992, giving Gatchalian five days to answer. Gatchalian's motion for reconsideration was denied on August 3, 1992.
Appeals to the Court of Appeals
On July 23, 1992, Gatchalian opted to file a motion for a Bill of Particulars instead of answering the protest. This was denied by the trial court on August 5, 1992. Gatchalian escalated the matter to the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court for not dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals, on November 24, 1992, upheld the trial court's decisions, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court confirmed that Aruelo had timely filed the protest and dismissed Gatchalian's claims about non-payment of the filing fee.
Arguments regarding Timeliness of Filing
Gatchalian contended that Aruelo's election protest was filed late, citing Section 3, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which dictates a filing period of ten days post-proclamation. However, the court determined that Aruelo's earlier filing of a pre-proclamation case effectively suspended the timeline for filing an election protest. Aruelo's election protest, although filed on June 2, 1992, was deemed valid as the resolution denying the pre-proclamation case was received on June 22, 1992, providing Aruelo with limited time to proceed.
Examination of Filing Fee Compliance
Gatchalian's claims regarding Aruelo's payment of the requisite filing fee were partially upheld. The law mandates a filing fee of P300.00 under Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure before an election protest can proceed. The court noted that while Aruelo had s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 107979)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Danilo F. Gatchalian against the Court of Appeals, Judge Ibarra S. Vigilia, and Gregorio N. Aruelo, Jr.
- The case arises from the May 11, 1992 elections for the Vice Mayor of Balagtas, Bulacan, where Gatchalian was proclaimed the winner by a margin of four votes.
Background of the Case
- On May 13, 1992, the Municipal Board of Canvassers announced Gatchalian as the duly elected Vice Mayor.
- On May 22, 1992, Aruelo filed a verified petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to annul Gatchalian's proclamation.
- Following this, Aruelo filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court on June 2, 1992, which included a claim for damages.
Petitioner’s Actions
- Gatchalian received an amended summons on June 10, 1992, and was given five days to respond.
- Instead of filing an answer, Gatchalian opted to file a motion to dismiss on June 15, 1992, citing:
- The election protest was filed out of time.
- There was a pending pre-proclamation case, making the protest premature.
- Aruelo failed to pay the correct filing fees.
- Gatchalian’s motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court on July 10, 1992, compelling him to file an answer.