Torres v. Ribo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bernardo Torres and Mamerto S. Ribo were candidates for provincial governor of Leyte in the November 11, 1947 elections. Ribo was proclaimed the winner, prompting Torres to file an election protest. Procedural History: Summons was served on Ribo on December 12, 1947. Ribo filed a motion to dismiss on December 15, which was denied, and he was given five days to answer. Ribo received this order on January 6, 1948, and on January 7, he moved for reconsideration. The court granted this motion and dismissed Torres's protest. Torres appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the dismissal on May 21, 1948. Ribo received this decision on May 24, 1948. On May 29, 1948, Ribo filed his answer and counter-protest. The Appeal: Torres moved to dismiss and strike out Ribo's answer and counter-protest, arguing it was filed out of time. The trial court granted this motion, leading to Ribo's present appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion to dismiss an election protest suspends the period for filing an answer and counter-protest. Whether the answer and counter-protest filed by the protestee-appellant were filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court, holding that the answer and counter-protest were filed within the reglementary period. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that a bona fide motion to dismiss an election protest suspends the period within which the protestee should file his answer until said motion is finally decided. The rationale is that if the motion to dismiss prospers, there would be no need for the protestee to file an answer, thus avoiding unnecessary procedural steps. This principle is essential for the orderly progression of election cases, ensuring that preliminary objections are addressed before requiring a substantive response. On Issue 2: The Court found that the period for filing the answer and counter-protest commenced on January 6, 1948, when Ribo received the order giving him five days to answer. This period was suspended when Ribo filed a motion for reconsideration on January 7, 1948. The suspension continued until the Supreme Court's decision on May 21, 1948, reversing the dismissal of the protest. Although Ribo received the decision on May 24, 1948, the decision did not become final until the lapse of the period for filing a motion for reconsideration. By filing his answer and counter-protest on May 29, 1948, without waiting for the entry of final judgment, Ribo effectively accepted the Supreme Court's decision, and the period to answer, which had only one day remaining from the initial five-day grant before the suspension, was considered timely. Therefore, the answer and counter-protest were filed within the five-day period granted by the court.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that a bona fide motion to dismiss an election protest effectively suspends the period for the protestee to file an answer and counter-protest. This suspension continues until the motion to dismiss is finally resolved. Furthermore, any subsequent motion for reconsideration of an order related to the dismissal, and the subsequent appeal from such dismissal, also suspend the period to answer until the appellate court's decision becomes final.