Enojas v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Alfredo B. Enojas, Jr. and respondent Jose R. Rodriguez were candidates for mayor of Roxas, Palawan, in the May 1995 elections. Respondent Rodriguez was proclaimed the winner by 48 votes. Petitioner Enojas filed an election protest, seeking revision of ballots in 102 precincts. After revision in 39 precincts, petitioner withdrew the remaining unrevised precincts with court approval. Procedural History: After petitioner Enojas rested his case and filed his Formal Offer of Exhibits, respondent Rodriguez filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to non-compliance with Katarungang Pambarangay and incorrect docket fees, lack of cause of action, waiver, prematurity, and forum shopping. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion based on lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of correct docket fees. Petitioner Enojas appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which reversed the RTC and remanded the case for further proceedings. The RTC then set the case for respondent Rodriguez's evidence presentation. Petitioner Enojas opposed this, arguing respondent had waived his right to present evidence. The RTC agreed, issuing an order on February 19, 1997, deeming respondent to have waived his right to present evidence, and denied his motion for reconsideration. Respondent Rodriguez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the COMELEC (SPR No. 9-97) questioning these orders. Meanwhile, the RTC rendered a decision on April 28, 1997, declaring petitioner Enojas the winner and granted his motion for execution pending appeal. The COMELEC issued a TRO, but after its expiration, the RTC issued a writ of execution pending appeal, and petitioner Enojas assumed office. Respondent Rodriguez filed another petition with the COMELEC (SPR No. 18-97) questioning the writ of execution. The Petition: The present petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the COMELEC's resolution in SPR Nos. 9-97 and 18-97, which set aside the RTC's orders and decision, ordered the RTC to proceed with the trial, and directed petitioner Enojas to vacate the mayoralty position, restoring the parties to the status quo ante.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Rodriguez, raising grounds including lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action, should be considered a demurrer to evidence, thereby implying a waiver of his right to present evidence. Whether the COMELEC erred in reversing the trial court's orders and decision, which deemed respondent Rodriguez to have waived his right to present evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the questioned resolution of the Commission on Elections. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 50, declaring petitioner Alfredo B. Enojas, Jr. as the duly elected mayor of Roxas, Palawan, was reinstated. The President Judge of the RTC was ordered to cease and desist from further proceeding with the hearing of the case. The decision was made immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the motion to dismiss constitutes a demurrer to evidence: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It clarified that a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction does not result in a waiver of the right to present evidence, unlike a demurrer to evidence which questions the sufficiency of the evidence presented. However, in this case, the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Rodriguez contained allegations that challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented by petitioner Enojas, specifically stating that the protest had no cause of action and that the evidence offered was insufficient to establish it. Such a motion, filed after the protestant had rested his case and offered his evidence, and before the protestee was to present his own, is considered a demurrer to evidence. The Court emphasized that in election protests, which are summary and preferential in nature, a motion to dismiss at this stage, if it questions the sufficiency of the evidence, must be treated as a demurrer to evidence, implying a waiver of the right to present further evidence by the protestee. The Court cited Demetrio v. Lopez and Jardiel v. Commission on Elections as precedents for this principle. The fact that the motion also raised jurisdictional issues does not alter its nature as a demurrer to evidence, as this would allow parties to avoid the consequences of a demurrer by simply including other grounds in their motion. The Court found that respondent Rodriguez had impliedly waived his right to present evidence by filing this motion, and therefore, the trial court correctly held that respondent Rodriguez had waived his right to present evidence. On the issue of whether the COMELEC erred in reversing the trial court's orders and decision: The Court found that the COMELEC erred in reversing the trial court's orders and decision. The trial court correctly held that respondent Rodriguez had waived his right to present evidence.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss filed after the protestant has rested his case and offered his evidence, which raises grounds such as lack of cause of action, is considered a demurrer to evidence, implying a waiver of the right to present evidence by the protestee, regardless of whether other grounds like lack of jurisdiction are also raised.