Torres-Gomez v. Codilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns an election protest filed by Eufrocino C. Codilla, Jr. against Congresswoman Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez for the Fourth Legislative District of Leyte. The dispute originated from the disqualification of Richard I. Gomez, who had initially filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the same position. Buenaventura O. Juntilla filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking Gomez's disqualification due to insufficient residency. The COMELEC First Division granted this petition, and its decision was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. Following Gomez's acceptance of the resolution and his subsequent substitution by his wife, petitioner Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez, the elections proceeded. Procedural History: After petitioner Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez was declared the winner in the May 2010 elections, private respondent Eufrocino C. Codilla, Jr. filed an Election Protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Petitioner sought the dismissal of this protest, arguing it suffered from a defective verification and that the issues raised were not proper for an election protest. The HRET issued Resolution No. 10-282, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and reiterating its stance that the protest was not insufficient in form, while also denying the request to defer the preliminary conference. Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the HRET through Resolution No. 10-482. The Petition: Petitioner Congresswoman Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez filed this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the HRET's Resolution Nos. 10-282 and 10-482. The petition argues that the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion by refusing to dismiss the election protest despite an allegedly defective verification. Petitioner also contends that the HRET erred in allowing the protestant to raise issues concerning the qualification of candidates within an election protest. The core of the petition is that the alleged defects in the verification, including a discrepancy in dates and the location of notarization, rendered the election protest a fatally defective pleading, thus divesting the HRET of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it refused to dismiss the election protest despite an allegedly defective verification. Whether the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allowed the protestant to raise issues on the qualification of candidates in an election protest.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed for failure to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET. The Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction is likewise denied. Resolution Nos. 10-282 and 10-482 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are hereby affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Allegedly Defective Verification: The Court found that the alleged defects in the verification were more apparent than real. The discrepancy in the date of notarization (2009 vs. 2010) was considered a mere mechanical error, corrected by the notary public's handwritten alteration and countersignature. The argument that private respondent could not have appeared before the notary public in Quezon City was rebutted by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the notary public, which petitioner failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence. The alleged defects in the notarial stamp (handwritten expiration date, outdated PTR, absence of MCLE number) were deemed not to affect the validity of the verification itself, with the MCLE requirement not applying to notarial acts and the PTR deficiency entailing only potential administrative liability for the notary public. The Court reiterated that the verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, and its defect does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, especially in election contests where rules should be liberally construed to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The HRET's directive to have the verification properly notarized was deemed a proper exercise of its discretion. On the Propriety of the Election Protest: The Court affirmed that the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives, including the power to determine its own jurisdiction. The election protest filed by Codilla, which contested the counting of votes and questioned the validity of petitioner's proclamation due to alleged invalid substitution, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET. The Court clarified that an election protest is a contest between defeated and winning candidates to determine who obtained the majority of legal votes and is entitled to hold office. Therefore, the issues raised in Codilla's election protest were proper and within the HRET's jurisdiction, and the tribunal did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the protest.
Main Doctrine
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of an election protest despite an allegedly defective verification, as verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, and rules on election protests should be liberally construed to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The HRET also has exclusive jurisdiction to determine its authority and to take cognizance of election protests filed before it.