Tomarong v. Lubguban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Herminigildo Tomarong, Venancio Sumagang, Francisco Magsayo, and Federico Cuevas, candidates for Punong Barangay of Lazi, Siquijor, who were defeated in the 11 May 1994 elections, each filed an election protest before the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Lazi, Siquijor. The winning candidates, respondents Antonio Bangquiao, Demetrio Lumacad, Rico Tumapon, and Felix Tamiat, filed their respective answers, praying for the dismissal of the protests on the ground that the protestants failed to attach the required certification on non-forum shopping pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Procedural History: The protestants argued that the Circular was not applicable to election contests. They later submitted the required certification eighteen (18) days after filing the protests. Initially, the MCTC rejected the affirmative defense and gave due course to the protests, holding that election cases were not covered by Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Subsequently, the court agreed to seek clarification and, based on the opinion of the Court Administrator that the certification should be required, dismissed the protests on 6 October 1994. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The protestants filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the lower court in dismissing their protests. They contended that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 was limited to civil complaints and that election contests are special summary proceedings. They also argued that the MCTC's exclusive jurisdiction over election protests precluded the possibility of forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring a certification on non-forum shopping is applicable to election contests before municipal trial courts. Whether the subsequent filing of the certification on non-forum shopping, eighteen (18) days after the filing of the election protests, constitutes substantial compliance.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 to election contests: The Court held that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is applicable to election cases. The Circular explicitly states that its requirements shall be strictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, applications, or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the principle of ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus (where the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish), meaning that if the law does not make a distinction, we should not make one. The argument that the MCTC has exclusive jurisdiction and thus forum shopping is impossible was also rejected, as it failed to consider the possibility of parties availing of other remedies or filing the same protest in multiple MTCs by mistake. On substantial compliance: The Court ruled that the subsequent filing of the required certification eighteen (18) days after the filing of the protests does not constitute substantial compliance. Unlike in the Loyola v. Court of Appeals case where the certification was filed a day after the protest and within the reglementary period for filing the protest, in this case, the filing was made after the reglementary period for filing the protest had already expired. The Court emphasized that the mere submission of a certification after a motion to dismiss has been filed does not automatically operate as substantial compliance, as this would render the Circular ineffective. The strict compliance mandated by the Circular underscores its mandatory nature, but does not preclude substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances, provided it is within the prescribed reglementary period.
Main Doctrine
Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring a certification on non-forum shopping is applicable to election contests before municipal trial courts. However, substantial compliance may be considered if the certification is filed within the reglementary period for filing the protest.