Case Summary (G.R. No. 211010)
Procedural History
The Protestant filed a verified election protest on July 23, 2004. The Protestee filed an Answer with Counter-Protest on August 5, 2004. The Protestant died on December 14, 2004; counsel filed a Notice of Death and, on January 10, 2005, the widow filed a manifestation with an urgent petition/motion to intervene and substitute for the deceased protestant. The Petition and motions were considered under the PET Rules with applicable suppletory application of the Rules of Court and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Issues Presented
- Whether the widow (Jesusa Sonora Poe) may intervene and substitute for the deceased protestant in a presidential election protest.
- If substitution is not permitted, whether the protest should be dismissed for lack of a real party in interest.
Parties’ Contentions
Movant/intervenor argued that the protest survives the protestant’s death, relying on precedents (De Castro v. COMELEC; Lomugdang v. Javier) and invoked the public interest in ascertaining the true will of the electorate; she sought substitution to continue the prosecution of the already-commenced protest, while acknowledging she could not legally assume the presidency even if the protest succeeded. The Protestee contended substitution by the widow is impermissible because the right to public office is personal and non-transmissible (citing Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias and HRET precedent), emphasized PET Rule 14 limiting contestants to the registered candidates who placed second or third, and argued that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain a substitution by a non-candidate or to adjudicate a suit framed as one between the electorate and the protestee. The Protestee further urged dismissal owing to the death of the protestant and the absence of a proper substitute.
Governing Rules and Constitutional Basis
The Tribunal applied the 1987 Constitution as the governing charter for its jurisdictional and institutional framework. Controlling internal rules included PET Rule 14 (restricting who may file presidential election protests to registered candidates who received the second or third highest votes) and PET Rule 69 (allowing analogous or suppletory application of the Rules of Court, Supreme Court decisions, and electoral tribunal decisions insofar as consistent). From the Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 16 (duty of counsel upon death of a party and substitution by legal representative) and Rule 19, Section 1 (intervention requirements) were applied analogously.
Relevant Jurisprudence and Doctrinal Principles
The Tribunal relied on its existing jurisprudence distinguishing the personal, non-transmissible nature of the right to public office from the public-interest character of election contests. Precedents cited include De Castro v. COMELEC (recognizing continuation of contests despite death under limited circumstances), Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias and De la Victoria v. COMELEC (denying substitution by heirs or widow where they are not real parties in interest), and decisions allowing substitution only where the substitute is a real party in interest who would immediately and directly benefit (e.g., a vice-mayor who stands to succeed to office). HRET decisions (Abadilla v. Ablan; Alberto v. Tapia) were noted as analogous authorities in congressional contests.
Tribunal’s Analysis
The Tribunal framed the dispositive legal standard around the doctrine of the “real party in interest”: substitution or intervention is permissible only by a person who would be directly and immediately benefited or injured by the judgment and therefore entitled to the avails of the suit. PET Rule 14’s enumeration of authorized contesting candidates (2nd and 3rd placers) reflects the identification of real parties in interest in presidential contests. The Tribunal observed that the widow explicitly disclaimed any entitlement to assume the presidency and therefore could not b
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211010)
Nature of the Case
- Petition: Presidential election protest filed before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (P.E.T.) challenging the proclamation and possession of office of the declared winner of the May 10, 2004 Presidential Elections.
- Ancillary question: whether the widow of the deceased protestant may intervene and/or substitute for the deceased protestant during the pendency of the election protest.
- P.E.T. composition: case brought before an Electoral Tribunal composed, pursuant to the Constitution, by all fifteen members of the Supreme Court.
Chronology and Key Dates
- May 10, 2004: Presidential elections held.
- June 24, 2004 (past midnight): Congress, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, proclaimed Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) duly elected President, having obtained 12,905,808 votes versus 11,782,232 for Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ).
- June 30, 2004: GMA took her Oath of Office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
- July 23, 2004: FPJ (Ronald Allan Poe) filed a seasonable election protest before the P.E.T.
- August 5, 2004: GMA filed Answer with Counter-Protest.
- December 14, 2004: FPJ died during medical treatment; medical certificate indicated cause of death as cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary to cerebral infarction.
- January 10, 2005: Notice of Death filed and a “MANIFESTATION with URGENT PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED PROTESTANT FPJ” filed by widow, Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces), who signed verification and certification therein.
- March 29, 2005: P.E.T. Resolution rendered by Justice Quisumbing, denying intervention/substitution and dismissing the case for lack of a real party in interest.
Procedural Posture
- Original election protest properly filed by second-placer FPJ.
- Protestee (GMA) answered and filed a counter-protest.
- Proceedings paused or confronted with motions and exchanges among counsel when FPJ died.
- Widow sought to intervene/substitute as legal representative and as interested party to pursue the protest post-death of FPJ.
- P.E.T. considered analogous and suppletory application of the Rules of Court and prior jurisprudence to resolve substitution/intervention question.
- Final disposition: motion to intervene/substitute denied; P.E.T. Case No. 002 dismissed for lack of a real party in interest; no pronouncement as to costs.
Central Issues Presented
- Whether the widow of the deceased protestant (Mrs. Jesusa Sonora Poe a.k.a. Susan Roces) may intervene and/or substitute for the deceased protestant in a pending presidential election protest.
- Whether the death of the protestant abates the pending presidential election protest.
- Who constitutes a “real party in interest” for purposes of substitution or intervention in a presidential election protest.
- Whether public interest alone can justify substitution or intervention by a person who is not a real party in interest.
- Whether the P.E.T. may dismiss the petition on the ground that no real party in interest has come forward to continue the protest.
Relevant Legal Provisions and Rules (as cited in the Resolution)
- PET Rule 14 (Election Protest): only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President who received the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or Vice‑President by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the P.E.T. within thirty (30) days after proclamation of the winner.
- Rule 69 (Applicability): permits analogous or suppletory application, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with PET Rules, of (1) the Rules of Court; (2) decisions of the Supreme Court; and (3) decisions of electoral tribunals.
- Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 16 (Death of party; duty of counsel): prescribes counsel’s duty to inform the court within thirty (30) days of a party’s death, to give name/address of legal representative; permits substitution by heirs where claim is not extinguished; court to order appearance/substitution; remedies if legal representative fails to appear; appointment of executor/administrator and possible recovery of costs.
- Rules of Court, Rule 19, Section 1 (Who may intervene): permits intervention for a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either party, or whose rights may be adversely affected by disposition of property in custody of the court; court to consider delay, prejudice, or whether intervenor’s rights may be protected in a separate proceeding.
Key Authorities and Precedents Cited
- De Castro v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 125249, February 7, 1997, 267 SCRA 806.
- Lomugdang v. Javier, No. L-27535, September 30, 1967, 21 SCRA 402.
- Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias, No. L-24583, October 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 533.
- De la Victoria v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 95275-76, July 23, 1991, 199 SCRA 561.
- Abadilla v. Ablan, HRET Case No. 95-005, September 11, 1996, 9 HRET Reports 102 (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal).
- Alberto v. Tapia, HRET Case No. 37, January 23, 1989, 1 HRET Reports 52.
- Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001, February 13, 1996, 253 SCRA 559.
- Francisco, Jr. v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng Mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., G.R. Nos. 160261-63 & 160277, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44 (citing Kilosbayan Incorporated v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995, 246 SCRA 540).
- Magsaysay-Labrador v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 58168, December 19, 1989, 180 SCRA 266.
Parties’ Contentions — Movant/Intervenor (Widow) (as presented by counsel)
- Asserted urgent public interest in continuing and substituting for her late husband to ascertain the true and genuine will of the electorate in the 2004 elections.
- Relied on De Castro and Lomugdang to support proposition that death of the protestant does not necessarily constitute ground for dismissal or divest the tribunal of jurisdiction.
- Claimed representative role not for personal ambition but to vindicate the public interest; acknowledged she cannot succeed to, assume or be entitled to the pres