DUEÑAS, JR. VS.

HRET
G.R. No. 185401, July 21, 2009

FACTS:
Dueñas, Jr. and Reyes were rival candidates for the position of congressman in the 2nd
legislative district of Taguig City in the 2007 synchronized national and local elections. After the
canvass of the votes, the former was proclaimed as the winner. Not conceding defeat, the latter
filed an election protest, praying for a revision, alleging that he was cheated in the protested 170
of 732 precincts through insidious and well-orchestrated electoral frauds and anomalies which
resulted in the systematic reduction of his votes and the corresponding increase in the former’s
votes.

In an order, the HRET directed the continuation of the revision and appreciation of the
remaining 75% of the counter-protested precincts pursuant to Rule 88 of the HRET Rules.
Instead of complying with the order, the former filed an urgent motion to withdraw/abandon
the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts which the HRET denied. The Tribunal then
ordered the use of its own funds for the revision of the remaining 75% counter-protested
precincts.
Subsequently, the HRET issued a resolution under Rule 88 of the HRET Rules and settled
jurisprudence, ruling that it had the discretion either to dismiss the protest or counter-protest,
or to continue with the revision if necessitated by reasonable and sufficient grounds affecting the
validity of the election. This was with the end in view of ascertaining the true choice of the
electorate. It was the HRET’s position that the mere filing of a motion to withdraw/abandon the
unrevised precincts did not automatically divest the HRET of its jurisdiction over the same.
Moreover, it ruled that its task of determining the true will of the electorate was not confined to
the examination of contested ballots. Under its plenary power, it could motu propio review the
validity of every ballot involved in a protest or counter-protest and the same could not be
frustrated by the mere expedient of filing a motion to withdraw/abandon the remaining
counter-protested precincts. Convinced that it could not determine the true will of the electorate
of the 2nd legislative district of Taguig City on the basis alone of the initial revision of the 100%
protested precincts and the 25% counter-protested precincts, it had no other recourse but to
continue the revision and appreciation of all the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, in issuing the Resolution, to continue the revision and appreciation of all the
remaining 75% counter-protested precincts.
2. Whether or not HRET’s assumption of the burden of the costs of the continued revision
amounted to an illegal and unconstitutional disbursement of public funds under Art. VI, Sec.
29 (1) of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING:
1. No. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Ordinary abuse of discretion
is insufficient. The abuse of discretion must be grave, that is, the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent
and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of the law. In other words, for

Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A

 a petition for certiorari to prosper, there must be a clear showing of caprice and arbitrariness
in the exercise of discretion, or proof that there was a contravention of the
Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.

Since Dueñas, Jr. miserably failed to discharge the onus probandi imposed on him, the
Supreme Court cannot substitute its own sense or judgment for that of the
HRET, at the risk of unduly encroaching on the exclusive prerogative of the HRET as the
sole judge of election contests involving its members.

2. No. The Constitution mandates that the HRET “shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications” of its members. By employing the word “sole,” the
Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the HRET in the adjudication of election
contests involving its members is exclusive and exhaustive. Its exercise of power is
intended to be its own — full, complete and unimpaired. Thus pursuant to Rule 88, the
HRET could continue or discontinue the revision proceedings ex propio motu, that is, of its
own accord. Thus, even if we were to adopt Dueñas, Jr.’s view that he ought to have been
allowed by HRET to withdraw his counter-protest, there was nothing to prevent the HRET
from continuing the revision of its own accord by authority of Rule 88. It is hornbook
doctrine that, once acquired, jurisdiction is not lost at the instance of the parties
but continues until the case is terminated.

When jurisdiction is conferred by law on a court or tribunal, that court or

tribunal, unless otherwise provided by law, is deemed to have the authority to
employ all writs, processes and other means to make its power effective. Where a
general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the
exercise of one or the performance of the other is also conferred. Since the HRET
possessed the authority to motu propio continue a revision of ballots, it also had
the wherewithal to carry it out. It thus ordered the disbursement of its own funds for the
revision of the ballots in the remaining counter-protested precincts. Certainly, the HRET’s
order that its own funds be used for the revision of the ballots from the 75% counter-
protested precincts was an exercise of a power necessary or incidental to the
accomplishment of its primary function as sole judge of election protest cases
involving its members.

Khristian Damielle A. Jamer – 4th Year, Block A