[ G.R. No. L-56174. May 15, 1981 ] 191 Phil. 738
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-56174. May 15, 1981 ]
TEODORO S. MAYUGA, PETITIONER, VS. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CFI OF BATANGAS, LEMERY BRANCH, LEMERY, BATANGAS, AND GERMAN M. TENORIO, RESPONDENTS. R E S O L U T I O N
MAKASIAR, J.:
Petitioner Teodoro S. Mayuga, KBL candidate, was proclaimed on January 31, 1980 as the duly elected mayor of San Nicolas, Batangas by the Board of Canvassers with a majority of 30 votes following the elections of January 30, 1980.
On February 8, 1980, private respondent German M. Tenorio, the Nacionalista Party candidate filed an election protest against petitioner, alleging that the ballots in voting centers Nos. 4-A, 6-A, 8, 9, 9-A, 9-B, 10, 10-A, 13 and 14 were not correctly appreciated.
On March 4, 1980, private respondent German M. Tenorio amended his petition by adding voting centers Nos. 2, 2-A and 4-B.
On March 10, 1980, petitioner Mayuga filed his answer with counter-protest and interposed as affirmative defense, among others, that the petition and amended petition were both filed out of time and hence respondent’s cause of action has prescribed.
On April 29, 1980, petitioner objected to the revision of the ballots from voting centers Nos. 2, 2-A and 4-B on the ground that the amendment including ballots from the aforesaid three (3) voting centers, was filed out of time.
On June 19, 1980, respondent judge gave due course to the amended protest.
Petitioner then filed with the Commission on Elections a petition to declare null and void the respondent Judge’s order dated June 19, 1980, insisting that the inclusion of the three (3) additional voting centers in the amended petition was filed beyond the period fixed by law. In an order dated January 23, 1981, the Commission on Elections dismissed the petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases cognizable by the Courts of First Instance.
On February 6, 1981, upon motion of private respondent, the respondent Judge issued an order setting the revision of ballots from voting centers Nos. 2, 2-A and 4-B in San Nicolas, Batangas.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner claims that substantial amendments to election protests must be filed within the period for the filing of the original protest itself. This position is correct under the cases decided prior to February 26, 1980.
However, by virtue of its rule-making authority, the Commission on Elections promulgated on February 26, 1980, Resolution No. 1451, Section 5, Rule II of which provides:
“Substantial and Formal Amendments. - After the case is set for hearing, no amendment to the allegations affecting the merits of the controversy shall be allowed except by leave of Court and only upon such ground as will serve public interest. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the Court that the motion to amend was made with intent to delay the action. Any amendment in matters of form may be permitted at any stage of the proceedings” (see Section 185[b], PD No. 1296 or the Revised Election Code of 1978; Sections 2[2] and [8], Art. XII, 1973 Constitution).
Neither the validity of said Resolution No. 1451 nor the authority of the Commission on Elections to promulgate the same has been challenged.
Contrary to the pretension of petitioner, the original protest was filed within the period prescribed by law.
It should be stressed that the amended petition was filed on March 4, 1980 by virtue of the aforesaid COMELEC Resolution No. 1451 promulgated on February 26, 1980, long before petitioner, as protestee, filed on March 10, 1980 his answer to the protest. In his answer, petitioner specifically denied paragraph 5 of the amended petition referring to the questioned voting centers Nos. 2, 2-A and 4-B.
Thus, the relevant portion of the challenged order of the respondent Judge reads:
“x x x.
“As stated, the protestee filed his answer to the amended motion of protest on March 10, 1980, specifically denying paragraph 5 of the amended petition (referring to the allegation concerning Voting Centers 2 and 2-A of Barangay Calangay and Voting Center No. 4-B in Barangay Pansipit, San Nicolas, Batangas) which were not alleged in the original motion of protest. Protestee in his answer averred –
‘3.1 In Barangay Calangay, Voting Centers 2 and 2-A and in Barangay Pansipit, Voting Center No. 4-B, there were no marked ballots appreciated by the election committee in favor of the respondent.
‘3.2 Assuming arguendo that some ballots contained the word ‘Meralya’, the same cannot be considered as identifying marks, but votes intended for ‘Marella’, a candidate for the Provincial Board.’
“From the foregoing answer of the protestee, he was not caught by surprise and placed to a disadvantage as to justify a rejection of the amended motion of protest. On the contrary, the action of the protestee, by answering specifically the amendments in question paved the way for the admission of the amended motion of protest. As a matter of fact, the protestee has not yet made an answer to the original motion of protest. No delay was intended by the protestant when he filed his amended motion of protest. The truth is he is much more interested in terminating this protest than anybody else. This situation obtaining in this case is only one among the different situations confronting the courts today. This situation occurring in the past elections, not having been provided for solution by law except by jurisprudence, must have prompted the Commission on Elections to promulgate on February 26, 1980, Resolution No. 1451 governing Rules on Election Contest.
“The law providing for a period within which an election protest should be filed is Mandatory but the law providing for amendments to the election protest is permissive. Hence, because this case has not yet been set for hearing when the amendment was made, the law allows the protestant to amend his motion of protest even without leave of court. This, to the mind of the Court is the liberal interpretation of Section 5, Rule III of the Comelec Rules on Election Contest (Resolution No. 1451, promulgated on February 26, 1980). A contrary interpretation will be repugnant to the fundamental rule that election laws should be liberally construed.
“x x x” (pp. 19-20, rec.).
It is clear, therefore, that COMELEC Resolution No. 1451 of February 26, 1980 has modified the previous rulings on the matter of substantial and formal amendments. Under the resolution, as long as the case has not been set for hearing, substantial amendments affecting the merits of the protest shall be allowed when public interest could be sub-served thereby and when such amendments are not intended to delay the action.
In the instant case, the substantial amendment, as heretofore stated, was effected before any responsive pleading was filed by herein petitioner, and consequently, the case had not yet been set for hearing on March 4, 1980, because petitioner filed his answer only on March 10, 1980.
WHEREFORE, FOR LACK OF MERIT, THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED. NO COSTS.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Aquino, Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur. Barredo, J., concurs and agrees with Justice de Castro in Pimentel, but the majority ruled otherwise and that decision is now the law. Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave. Abad Santos, J., no part. De Castro, J., see separate opinion.