Abeja v. Tañada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Evelyn Abeja and private respondent Rosauro Radovan were candidates for municipal mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon. Based on official returns, Radovan was credited with 6,215 votes and Abeja with 5,951 votes. Abeja filed an election contest covering 22 precincts. Radovan filed an Answer with a Counter-Protest covering 36 precincts. Procedural History: During pre-trial, Radovan's counsel proposed that the 36 counter-protested precincts be revised only if Abeja led by at least one vote after the revision of the 22 protested precincts. The trial court deemed this premature. The revision of the 22 precincts was completed in September 1992. Radovan refused to pay fees for the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts, insisting on his conditional revision. Abeja moved to consider the counter-protest withdrawn. Judge Ludovico Lopez did not rule on these motions but allegedly stated that further revision would not be allowed after a ruling on the contested ballots of the 22 precincts. By April 1993, all incidents, including the report of the Board of Revisors and Abeja's offer of evidence, were submitted for resolution without Radovan having caused the revision of the 36 precincts. Judge Lopez issued an order on August 18, 1993, ruling on objections to the revised ballots of the 22 precincts, but without a summation of votes or declaration of a winner. Abeja then filed a motion to determine votes, proclaim a winner, and allow assumption of office, claiming a lead of 281 votes based on her computation. Private respondents (substituted by Vice-Mayor Conrado de Rama and Radovan's widow, Ediltrudes Radovan, after Rosauro Radovan's death on June 13, 1993) opposed, arguing the motion was premature as the 36 counter-protested precincts were yet to be revised. The Petition: Respondent Judge Federico Tañada, who succeeded Judge Lopez, issued orders dated September 21, 1993, and October 18, 1993, denying Abeja's motion and directing the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts. Abeja filed a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of these orders. A temporary restraining order was issued, but revision of 11 ballot boxes had already been completed.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondent should be allowed to proceed with the revision of the 36 precincts subject of the counter-protest after failing to pursue it for an extended period and insisting on a conditional revision. Whether the substitution of the deceased private respondent by his widow for a counter-claim for damages is proper.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed orders of respondent judge are set aside, and the counter-protest is dismissed. The respondent judge is ordered to resolve petitioner's motion to determine votes, proclaim a winner, and allow assumption of office. The substitution of the deceased private respondent's widow for a counter-claim for damages is deemed erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of allowing revision of counter-protested precincts: The Court held that the private respondent should not be allowed to proceed with the revision of the 36 precincts subject of the counter-protest. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 2 of Rule 17 and Section 11 of Rule 35, govern the order of hearing and presentation of evidence in election contests. These rules mandate that the protestant presents evidence first, followed by the protestee or protestant-in-intervention. The private respondent's insistence on revising his counter-protested precincts only if the petitioner led by at least one vote after the revision of the protested precincts is a self-serving rule without legal sanction. Such a condition was not authorized by any law or rule and was calculated to unduly prolong the litigation. By failing to commence the revision of the counter-protested precincts within a reasonable time and despite ample opportunities, the private respondent must be deemed to have waived or abandoned his counter-protest. The Court emphasized that the presentation of evidence by the protestee cannot continue after the court has ruled on the evidence of the protestant and determined the number of votes obtained by the latter, as this could lead to the protestee prolonging the protest and rendering it moot by the expiration of the term of office. Furthermore, the private respondent's unreasonable failure to act on his counter-protest constitutes laches, which is the neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption of abandonment. The Court found that the private respondent's position was a purely dilatory technique, and he must bear the grave consequences of his stubborn and unfounded refusal to proceed with the revision. On the issue of substitution of the deceased private respondent's widow: The Court found the substitution of the deceased Rosauro Radovan's widow, Ediltrudes Radovan, to be erroneous, particularly on the ground that the private respondent had a counter-claim for damages. The Court reiterated the principle that public office is personal to the incumbent and is not a property that passes to his heirs. Consequently, the heirs may no longer prosecute the deceased protestee's counter-claim for damages against the protestant because that right was extinguished upon the death of the protestee, which terminated his right to occupy the contested office. The Court cited Santos vs. Secretary of Labor and De la Victoria vs. Comelec in support of this ruling.
Main Doctrine
A private respondent in an election protest who fails to pursue the revision of counter-protested precincts within a reasonable time, despite opportunities, is deemed to have waived or abandoned his counter-protest, and cannot unilaterally impose a condition for such revision based on the outcome of the protestant's precincts.