Batoy v. Sarmiento
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Melody B. Batoy and private respondent Jeanfree Sarmiento were candidates for Barangay Chairman in Barangay Dasitam, Baclayon, Bohol, during the May 6, 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections. Sarmiento won by one vote, 20 to 19, and was proclaimed the winner. Batoy filed an election protest with the 13th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), alleging that two ballots were improperly appreciated, one in her favor and another that sounded similar to her name. 2. Procedural History: The MCTC dismissed Batoy's election protest due to her failure to attach a certification of non-forum shopping, as required by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Although Batoy later submitted the certification, the MCTC denied her motion for reconsideration. Instead of appealing to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Batoy filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that the MCTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The RTC dismissed Batoy's petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction and that the proper remedy was an appeal to the COMELEC. The RTC also denied Batoy's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Batoy filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the RTC's dismissal orders. She contended that her late submission of the non-forum shopping certification constituted substantial compliance and that the MCTC should have resolved her election protest on its merits, citing Loyola vs. Court of Appeals. Batoy further argued that her resort to a petition for certiorari with the RTC was proper because the MCTC had committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the non-forum shopping requirement is mandatory and that Batoy's excuse for non-compliance was insufficient. The Court also noted that Batoy failed to perfect her appeal to the COMELEC and that the case was moot due to the expiration of the elected officials' term.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner substantially complied with Administrative Circular No. 04-94 by submitting the certification of non-forum shopping after the filing of the election protest. Whether the MCTC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the election protest. Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari filed before it.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the petition for certiorari, holding that the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and because the MCTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted that the case had become moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94: The Court reiterated that the requirement for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and that subsequent compliance does not excuse the initial failure, citing Melo v. Court of Appeals. The Court found petitioner's excuse of oversight flimsy and unacceptable, as it would undermine the policy and objective of the circular. The pronouncement in Loyola v. Court of Appeals was distinguished, as in that case, the certification was submitted within the reglementary period for filing the protest, unlike in the present case where it was submitted long after the ten-day period had lapsed. The Court emphasized that submission after the reglementary period does not constitute substantial compliance, citing Tomarong v. Lubguban. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the MCTC: The Court found that the MCTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal of the election protest due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping was a valid exercise of its discretion. The petitioner's failure to comply with a mandatory procedural rule, which was not cured by subsequent submission after the reglementary period, justified the dismissal. Therefore, the MCTC's order was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of the RTC's dismissal of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari. Firstly, the RTC correctly ruled that it had no appellate jurisdiction over the MCTC's decision on an election protest. Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 clearly vests appellate jurisdiction over MCTC decisions on election protests with the COMELEC, not the RTC. Petitioner's recourse to the RTC via a Rule 65 petition was improper when a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal to the COMELEC was available. Secondly, as the MCTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, the basis for a Rule 65 petition before the RTC was absent. The erroneous filing with the RTC did not toll the period for perfecting an appeal to the COMELEC, citing Caluoag v. COMELEC. Consequently, the MCTC's order dismissing the election protest had become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The mandatory requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 cannot be excused by subsequent compliance, absent special circumstances or compelling reasons. The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory, and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper if a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists.