Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
244Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Election Law Digests - Ateneo Law School 3D

Election Law Digests - Ateneo Law School 3D

Views: 9,464 |Likes:
Published by lex libertadore

More info:

Published by: lex libertadore on Apr 16, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Visibility:Private
See more
See less

01/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
ELECTION CONTESTS16TOMARONG V. LUBGUBAN269 SCRA 624(TAN, L.)
FACTS:Several candidates including Tomarong were defeated in the 1994Barangay Elections in Siquijor. They all filed an election protestbefore the respective MCTC’s. The winning candidates filed theiranswers praying that the petitions be dismissed based on theaffirmative defense that the protestants failed to attach to theirpetitions the required certification on non-forum shopping asprovided for in SC-AC No. 04-94. The MCTC initially ruled to dismiss but deferred t o the Secretary of  Justice who then deferred to the Court Administrator who ruled thatthe certification on non-forum shopping should be required inelections contests before the MTC’s. Thus this petition under Rule65.HELD: The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping isrequired for election contests. Yes. The Court, citing Loyola v. Court of Appeals, said that: “We donot agree that SC-AC No. 04-94 is not applicable to election cases. There is nothing in the Circular that indicates that it does not applyto election cases. On the contrary, it expressly provides that therequirements therein, which are in addition to those in pertinentprovisions of the Rules of Court and existing circulars, ‘shall bestrictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions,applications or other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agenciesother the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.’ Ubi lex nondistinguit nec nos distinguire debemus.”In this case, the petitioners filed the required certification 18 daysafter filing their petitions. It cannot be considered substantialcompliance with the requirements of the Circular. Quite obviously,the reglementary period for filing the protest had, by then, alreadyexpired. Petition dismissed.Note: There can be substantial compliance even after a motion todismiss has been filed on the ground of lack of certificate of non-forum shopping but it must be done asap (the next day) otherwisethe value of the SC Circular would lose its value.
17BEAGAN V. BORJA261 SCRA 474(TEEHANKEE)
FACTS:
W
May 1994. Barangay Elections in Bislig, Tanauan, Leyte
W
Election protest filed by Arnulfo Santillano, Egonio asprotestee, Beegan as intervenor
W
About revision of three ballot boxes completed in October1994, Revision Committee presented its report to the CourtNovember 3, 1994
W
Problem arises when the abovementioned ballots werereopened for Xeroxing purposes for the perusal of theprotestee’s counsel
W
Office and Court Administrator viewed acts of respondentsin effecting the reopening of the ballot boxes and copyingtantamount to misconduct in office
W
Balano (clerk of court) and Borja believed in good faith thatthey had the authority to allow such.HELD:Photocopying of ballots is not tantamount to misconduct in office.
W
As long as no tampering or alteration was manifest inXeroxing/photocopying of court records, no liabilityattaches to anyone.
W
Respondents are exonerated.
18FERMO V. COMELEC328 SCRA 52(VALDEZ)
FACTS:
W
LAXINA and FERMO- candidates for the position of Punong
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
1
 
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Brgy. in QC. (1997 elections) LAXINA was proclaimedwinner
W
FERMO- filed election protest question results in 4 clusteredprecincts on ground of massive fraud and seriousirregularities.
W
MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) andgranted a motion for execution pending appeal. COMELECreversed on ground that the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time appeal is decided—not a “good reasonto warrant execution pendingappeal.HELD:A motion for executing pending appeal on ground of termexpiration is not “good reason” for issuance.Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction andpossession of original record… in its discretion, order execution of  judgment or final order even before expiration of the period toappeal
W
Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on “goodreasons (combination of 2 or more will suffice):1.PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED OR WILL OFELECTORATE2.SHORTNESS of remaining portion of term of contested office3.LENGTH OF TIME that election contest has beenPENDING
W
Shortness of remaining term- not good reason for executionof judgment pending appeal—RA 8524: extended term of office of Brgy. officials to 5 years (negates claim of FERMO
W
Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal,decision of FERMO’s proclamation as winner was stayed—status quo (last actual peaceful uncontested situationpreceding the controversy) restored
W
LAXINA: entitled to discharge functions
19SAQUILAYAN V. COMELEC416 SCRA 658(DINO)
FACTS:1.SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of Municipal Mayor of Imus, Cavite.2.SAQUILAYAN was proclaimed winner.3.JARO instituted an Election Protest Case before the RTC,contesting the results of all 453 election precincts. Healleges the ff:a.Votes in favor of JARO were considered strayb.Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considerednull and void, or counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN)c.Votes that were void (containing stickers ormarkings) were counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN,etc..4.SAQUILAYAN filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied bythe RTC.
5.
Questioning the denial of his Motion to Dismiss, theCOMELEC (Division) ruled in favor of SAQUILAYAN andordered the dismissal of the election protest. It ruled that JARO’s allegations failed to state a cause of action, on thebasis of Pena v. HRET.*
Pena v. HRET 
held that the bare allegations of massivefraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism, withoutspecification and substantiation of where and how theseoccurrences took place, render the protest fatallydefective.
6.
Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC
EnBanc
, SAQUILAYAN’s Motion to Dismiss was againdismissed, and the Election Protest Case was ordered toproceed.HELD:
1.
 The present case is similar to Miguel v. COMELEC, whichthe COMELEC
En Banc
used as basis in ordering theElection Protest Case to proceed.2.IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precinctsin their respective municipalities.
3.
As Miguel v. COMELEC is more recent than Pena v. HRET (as
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
2
 
ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
used by the COMELEC Division), then the former shouldprevail in case of a conflict.4.Furthermore, election contests involve public interest. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not beallowed to stand if they constituted an obstacle to thedetermination of the true will of the electorate.5.Laws governing election contests must be liberallyconstrued to the end that the will of the people in thechoice of public officials may not be defeated by meretechnical objections.6.Allowing the election protest to proceed would be the bestway of removing any doubt as to who was the realcandidate chosen by the electorate.
7.
Decision of COMELEC
En Banc
affirmed.
20SANTOS V. COMELEC399 SCRA 611(PADLAN)
FACTS:
Petitioner (SANTOS) and Respondent (PANULAYA) were bothcandidate for MAYOR of the Municipal of Balingoan, MisamisOriental in the May 14, 2001 elections.
MUNICIPAL Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed PANULAYAas Mayor.
SANTOS filed an ELECTION PROTEST in the RTC.
RTC found that SANTOS obtained 76 votes more thanPANULAYA. RTC declared SANTOS as winner. RTC voided MBC’sproclamation in favor of PANULAYA.
SANTOS filed a MOTION FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEALwith the RTC.
PANULAYA APPEALED the RTC declaration in favor of SANTOSto the COMELEC.
COMELEC issued INJUNCTION against RTC to refrain fromacting on motion for execution pending appeal.
RTC APPROVED motion for execution pending appeal.
SANTOS took OATH of office and ASSUMED duties andfunctions of his office.
PANULAYA filed with COMELEC a PETITION FOR STATUS QUOANTE.
COMELEC ISSUED ORDER directing parties to MAINTAINSTATUS QUO ANTE, at the same time ENJOINING SANTOS fromassuming functions of mayor.HELD:Mere filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and to resolve pending incidents such asmotions for execution pending appeal. The following constitute good reasons and
a combination of twoor more of them
will suffice to grant execution pending appeal:(1) public interest involved or will of the electorate; (2) theshortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contestedoffice; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has beenpending. The trial in the RTC took more than a year, while the three-yearterm of the Office of the Mayor continued to run. The will of theelectorate, as determined by the trial court in the election protest,had to be respected and given meaning.Between the determination by the trial court of who of thecandidates won the elections and the finding of the Board of Canvassers as to whom to proclaim, it is the court’s decision thatshould prevail.All that was required for a valid exercise of the discretion to allowexecution pending appeal was that the immediate executionshould be based "upon good reasons to be stated in a specialorder." The rationale why such execution is allowed in electioncases is to give as much recognition to the worth of a trial judge’sdecision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to theproclamation by the board of canvassers.Why should the proclamation by the board of canvassers suffice asbasis of the right to assume office, subject to future contingenciesattendant to a protest, and not the decision of a court of justice?
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08
3

Activity (244)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Can the losing party in an election protest file a Notice of Appeal and subsequently a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO before the COMELEC? What would be the legal consequences for filing both?
Desiree Pompeyo added this note
thanks.:D
Kris Nagera liked this
Nico Bambao liked this
Elaine Llarina liked this
Alvaro Jr Loreno liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->