Chua v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Herbert O. Chua (Chua) and Sophia Patricia K. Gil (Gil) were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Addition Hills, San Juan City in the October 28, 2013 Barangay Elections. Chua was initially proclaimed the winner with 465 votes against Gil's 460 votes. Procedural History: Gil filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of San Juan City, alleging fraud and illegal acts in the voting and counting. The MeTC dismissed the protest and affirmed Chua's proclamation. Gil appealed to the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which reversed the MeTC's decision and declared Gil the duly-elected Punong Barangay. Chua filed a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec En Banc, which affirmed the First Division's resolution. Chua then filed a Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution, arguing that Gil abandoned her protest by filing for a different position in a subsequent election. The Comelec En Banc denied this motion, deeming it a prohibited pleading. A Certificate of Finality was issued and recorded. The Petition: Chua filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, assailing the Comelec En Banc's resolutions and alleging grave abuse of discretion for not ruling on the supposed mootness of Gil's election protest.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution filed by Chua tolled the reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari. Whether the election protest had become moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the petition was filed out of time and that the election protest had become moot and academic due to subsequent elections.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. Chua received notice of the Comelec En Banc's denial of his motion for reconsideration on November 9, 2017, giving him twenty-four (24) days to file a petition for certiorari, which would have been until December 3, 2017. However, instead of filing a petition for certiorari, Chua filed a Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution. The Court clarified that a petition for certiorari must be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, and that the filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts this period. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but not less than five (5) days from notice of denial. In this case, Chua's filing of a prohibited pleading did not toll the running of the period. The Court emphasized that judgments become final and executory by operation of law upon the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. Once a decision attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. Chua failed to demonstrate that his case fell under any of the recognized exceptions to this rule. The Certificate of Finality issued and recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments further solidified the finality of the Comelec En Banc's resolution. The Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and requires strict observance of procedural rules. The petition must be filed within the prescribed period. Chua's failure to file the petition within the reglementary period, after filing a prohibited pleading, meant that the Comelec En Banc's Resolution had long attained finality. On the effect of the prohibited pleading: The Court ruled that the Manifestation with Clarification and Motion to Stay Execution was a prohibited pleading under Section 1(d), Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, as it was in the nature of a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, which is not allowed except in election offense cases. A prohibited pleading produces no legal effect and cannot toll the running of the period to appeal. Therefore, Chua's filing of this pleading did not interrupt the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari. On the mootness of the election protest: Even assuming the petition was properly filed, the Supreme Court found the case to be moot and academic. The issue of who won the 2013 Barangay Elections had become irrelevant due to the subsequent Barangay and SK Elections held on May 14, 2018. The Court noted that Chua himself won the 2018 Barangay Elections for the same position. An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, and a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. Deliberating on the merits would be an exercise in futility as any outcome could no longer be enforced.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari must be filed within the reglementary period. A prohibited pleading, such as a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling (except in election offense cases), does not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Furthermore, an election protest may become moot and academic if subsequent elections have already been concluded, rendering any resolution of the protest moot.