SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections
*
G.R. No. 125249. February 7, 1997.

JIMMY S. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. THE

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AMANDO A.
MEDRANO, respondents.

Election Law; Protests; Public office is personal to the public

officer and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death.
·It is true that a public office is personal to the public officer and is
not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death. Thus, applying
the doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona, upon the
death of the incumbent, no heir of his may be allowed to continue
holding his office in his place.
Same; Same; An election protest is not purely personal and
exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of
either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest
proceedings.·But while the right to a public office is personal and
exclusive to the public officer, an election protest is not purely
personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such
that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to
continue the protest proceedings.
Same; Same; An election protest involves not merely conflicting
private aspirations but is imbued with paramount public interests.
·An election contest, after all, involves not merely conflicting
private aspirations but is imbued with paramount public interests.
Same; Same; Death of the protestant neither constitutes a
ground for the dismissal of the contest nor ousts the trial court of its
jurisdiction to decide the election contest.·The death of the
protestant, as in this case, neither constitutes a ground for the
dismissal of the contest nor ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction to
decide the election contest. Apropos is the following pronouncement

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 1 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

of this court in the case of Lomugdang v. Javier: Determination of

what candidate has been in fact elected is a matter clothed with
public interest, wherefore, public policy demands that an election
contest, duly commenced, be not abated by the death of the
contestant. We have squarely so ruled in Sibulo Vda. de De Mesa vs.
Judge Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966, in the same
spirit that led this Court to hold that the ineligibility of the
protestant is not a defense

_______________

* EN BANC.

807

VOL. 267, FEBRUARY 7, 1997 807

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

(Caesar vs. Garrido, 53 Phil. 97), and that the protesteeÊs cessation
in office is not a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor detract
the CourtÊs jurisdiction to decide the case (Angeles vs. Rodriguez, 46
Phil. 595; Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 62 Phil. 584)."
Same; Same; The asseveration of petitioner that private
respondent is not a real party in interest entitled to be substituted in
the election protest in place of the late Jamilla is utterly without
legal basis.·The asseveration of petitioner that private respondent
is not a real party in interest entitled to be substituted in the
election protest in place of the late Jamilla, is utterly without legal
basis. Categorical was our ruling in Vda. de De Mesa and
Lomugdang that: „x x x the Vice Mayor elect has the status of a real
party in interest in the continuation of the proceedings and is
entitled to intervene therein. For if the protest succeeds and the
protestee is unseated, the Vice-Mayor succeeds to the office of
Mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected can not assume
the post.‰

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 2 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Garcia, De la Peña & Partners for petitioner.
Brillantes, Machura, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla &
Bello Law Offices for private respondent

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari raising twin issues as

regards the effect of the contestantÊs death in an election
protest: Is said contest a personal action extinguished upon
the death of the real party in interest? If not, what is the
mandatory period within which to effectuate the
substitution of parties?
The following antecedent facts have been culled from the
pleadings and are not in dispute:
Petitioner was proclaimed Mayor of Gloria, Oriental
Mindoro during the May 8,1995 elections.
In the same elections, private respondent was
proclaimed Vice-Mayor of the same municipality.

808

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

On May 19, 1995, petitionerÊs rival candidate, 1

the late
Nicolas M. Jamilla, filed an election protest before the
Regional 2 Trial Court of Pinamalayan, an, Oriental
Mindoro.
3
During the pendency of said contest, Jamilla
died. Four
days after such death or on December 19, 1995, the trial
court dismissed the election protest ruling as it did that "
[a]s this case is personal, the death of the protestant
extinguishes the case itself. The issue or issues brought
4
out
in this protest have become moot and academic."
On January 9, 1995, private respondent learned about
the dismissal of the protest from one Atty. Gaudencio S.
Sadicon, who, as the late JamillaÊs counsel, was the one
who informed the trial court of his clientÊs demise.
On January 15, 1996, private respondent filed his
Omnibus Petition/Motion (For Intervention 5
and/or
Substitution with Motion for Reconsideration). Opposition

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 3 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

thereto was filed by petitioner on January 30,

7
1996.6
In an Order dated February 14, 1996, the trial court
denied private respondentÊs Omnibus Petition/Motion and
stubbornly held that an election protest being personal to
the protestant, is ipso facto terminated by the latterÊs
death.
Unable to agree with the trial courtÊs dismissal of the
election protest, private respondent filed a petition for
certiorari and mandamus before the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC); private respondent mainly assailed
the trial court orders as having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion.
COMELEC 8
granted the petition for certiorari and
mandamus. It ruled that an election contest involves both
the pri-

________________

1 Election Protest Case No. 8–95.

2 Branch 41 presided by Judge Antonio R. Quizon.
3 Jamilla died on December 15, 1995.
4 Order dated December 19, 1995; Rollo, p. 26.
5 Rollo, pp. 78–83.
6 Id., pp. 85–86.
7 Id., p. 27.
8 Resolution of the COMELEC dated May 28, 1996, penned by
Commissioner Julio F. Desamito; Rollo, pp. 19–24.

809

VOL. 267, FEBRUARY 7, 1997 809

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

vate interests of the rival candidates and the public

interest in the final determination of the real choice of the
electorate, and for this reason, an election contest
necessarily survives the death of the protestant or the
protestee.
We agree.
It is true that a public office is personal to the public
officer 9and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon
death. Thus, applying the doctrine of actio personalis

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 4 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

moritur cum persona, upon the death of the incumbent, no

heir of his may be allowed to continue holding his office in
his place.
But while the right to a public office is personal and
exclusive to the public officer, an election protest is not
purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the
protestee such that the death of either would oust the court
of all authority to continue the protest proceedings.
An election contest, after all, involves not merely
conflicting private aspirations but is imbued with
paramount public interests. 10As we have held in the case of
Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias:

„x x x. It is axiomatic that an election contest, involving as it does

not only the adjudication and settlement of the private interests of
the rival candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling once
and for all the uncertainty that beclouds the real choice of the
electorate with respect to who shall discharge the prerogatives of
the offices within their gift, is a proceeding imbued with public
interest which raises it onto a plane over and above ordinary civil
actions. For this reason, broad perspectives of public policy impose
upon courts the imperative duty to ascertain by all means within
their command who is the real candidate elected in as expeditious a
manner as possible, without being fettered by technicalities and
procedural barriers to the end that the will of the people may not be
frustrated (Ibasco vs. Ilao, et al., G.R. L-17512, December 29, 1960;
Reforma vs. De Luna, G.R. L-13242, July 31, 1958). So inextricably
intertwined are the interests of the contestants and those of the
public that there can be no gainsaying the logic of the proposition

________________

9 Santos v. Secretary of Labor, 22 SCRA 848, 850 [1968].

10 18 SCRA 533 [1966].

810

810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

that even the voluntary cessation in office of the protestee not only
does not ipso facto divest him of the character of an adversary in the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 5 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

contest inasmuch as he retains a party interest to keep his political

opponent out of the office and maintain therein his successor, but
also does not in any manner impair or detract from the jurisdiction
of the court to pursue the proceeding to its final conclusion (De Los
Angeles vs, Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 595, 597; Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 62
Phil. 584, 587; Galves vs. Maramba, G.R. L-13206). Upon the same
principle, the death of the protestee De Mesa did not abate the
proceedings in the election protest filed against him, and it may be
stated as a rule that an election contest survives and must be
11
prosecuted to final judgment despite the death of the protestee."

The death of the protestant, as in this case, neither

constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor
ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the election
contest. Apropos is the following pronouncement
12
of this
court in the case of Lomugdang v. Javier:

„Determination of what candidate has been in fact elected is a

matter clothed with public interest, wherefore, public policy
demands that an election contest, duly commenced, be not abated
by the death of the contestant. We have squarely so ruled in Sibulo
Vda. de De Mesa vs. Judge Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29,
1966, in the same spirit that led this Court to hold that the
ineligibility of the protestant is not a defense (Caesar vs. Garrido,
53 Phil. 97), and that the protesteeÊs cessation in office is not a
ground for the dismissal of the contest nor detract the CourtÊs
jurisdiction to decide the case (Angeles vs. Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 595;
13
Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 62 Phil. 584)."

The asseveration of petitioner that private respondent is

not a real party in interest entitled to be substituted in the
election protest in place of the late Jamilla, is utterly
without legal basis. Categorical was our ruling in Vda. de
De Mesa and Lomugdang that:

________________

11 Id., p. 538.
12 21 SCRA 402 [1967].
13 Id., p. 407.

811

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 6 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

VOL. 267, FEBRUARY 7, 1997 811

De Castro vs. Commission on Elections

„x x x the Vice Mayor elect has the status of a real party in interest
in the continuation of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene
therein. For if the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated,
the Vice-Mayor succeeds to the office of Mayor that becomes vacant
14
if the one duly elected can not assume the post."

To finally dispose of this case, we rule that the filing by

private respondent of his Omnibus Petition/Motion on
January 15, 1996, well within a period of thirty days from
December 19, 1995 when JamillaÊs counsel informed the
trial court of JamillaÊs death, was in compliance with
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. Since the
Rules of Court, though not generally applicable to election
cases, may however15 be applied by analogy or in a
suppletory character, private respondent was correct to
rely thereon.
The above jurisprudence is not ancient, in fact these
legal moorings have been recently reiterated
16
in the 1991
case of De la Victoria vs. COMELEC. If only petitionerÊs
diligence in updating himself with case law is as spirited as
his persistence in pursuing his legal asseverations up to
the highest court of the land, no doubt further derailment
of the election protest proceedings could have been avoided.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition
for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,

Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Francisco, Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

··o0o··

______________

14 Ibid.
15 Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533, 539 [1966].

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 7 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 267 7/4/20, 9:10 PM

16 199 SCRA 561.

812

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017319e75977c7e85a9a003600fb002c009e/p/AUB096/?username=Guest Page 8 of 8