Roquero v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eduardo V. Roquero and Reynaldo A. Villano were candidates for Mayor of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan in the May 8, 1995 elections. On July 19, 1995, petitioner Roquero was proclaimed Mayor. On July 24, 1995, private respondent Villano filed a motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC order directing the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) to reconvene and proclaim candidates. This motion was denied by the COMELEC on September 8, 1995. Procedural History: Private respondent Villano filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the COMELEC's denial, which was dismissed on January 30, 1996, with a motion for reconsideration denied on April 16, 1996. On May 17, 1996, Villano filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner Roquero filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the protest was filed out of time and failed to state a cause of action. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioner Roquero then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. On January 28, 1997, the COMELEC dismissed Roquero's petition and directed the RTC to proceed with the revision of ballots. The Petition: Petitioner Roquero filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, impugning the COMELEC's resolution dismissing his petition and seeking to annul the COMELEC's resolution and the RTC's orders, and to dismiss the election protest.
Issue(s)
Whether the election protest was filed within the mandatory ten-day reglementary period as provided under Section 251 in relation to Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Resolution dated January 28, 1997 of the COMELEC and the Orders dated August 29, 1996 and September 3, 1996 of the RTC are annulled and set aside. Election Case No. 01-M-96 is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the election protest was filed out of time, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction. Under Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), an election protest for municipal offices must be filed within ten days after the proclamation of the results. Section 248 explicitly states that the filing of a petition to annul or suspend a proclamation 'shall suspend the running of the period.' Applying these provisions, the Court noted that since Roquero was proclaimed on July 19, 1995, and Villano filed his challenge on July 24, 1995, exactly five days of the ten-day period had already been consumed. The period was suspended during the pendency of the case in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Supreme Court (SC), as the appeal to the SC is considered part of the entire proceeding which does not terminate until the Court renders judgment. Upon Villano's receipt of the SC's final resolution on May 7, 1996, the suspension was lifted and the remaining five days of the reglementary period resumed running, expiring on May 12, 1996. Because Villano filed his protest only on May 17, 1996, he was five days late, and the mandatory nature of this jurisdictional rule required the dismissal of the protest. Citing Gallardo v. Rimando, the Court emphasized that violation of this rule is not a mere procedural lapse but an essential requirement that ousts the court of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a petition to annul or suspend a proclamation suspends the running of the period within which to file an election protest. The period resumes running only after the final resolution of the pre-proclamation case.