SECOND DIVISION
MELODY B. BATOY,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
126833
February 17, 2003 -versus-
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 50, LOAY, BOHOL, PRESIDED OVER BY HON. DIONISIO R. CALIBO, JR.,
AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, 13th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT,
LOAY-ALBURQUERQUE-BACLAYON, BOHOL, PRESIDED OVER BY THE HON. FELICISIMO
S. MAISOG, JR. AND JEANFREE SARMIENTO,
Respondents. |
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CALLEJO,
SR., J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure
of the Order[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 50, dismissing the
petition
for certiorari in Special Civil Action No. 0016 and its Order[2]
denying the motion for reconsideration[3]
of said order filed by petitioner Melody B. Batoy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition at bench
stemmed from the following factual backdrop: Petitioner and private
respondent
Jeanfree Sarmiento were among the candidates for the position of
Barangay
Chairman in Barangay Dasitam, Baclayon, Bohol, during the May 6, 1996
Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK) elections. Private respondent garnered twenty (20) votes
over petitioner’s nineteen (19) votes, and the former was consequently
proclaimed by the Board of Election Tellers as the duly elected SK
Chairman
of Barangay Dasitam.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 9, 1996, petitioner
filed an election protest with the 13th Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of
Loay-Alburquerque-Baclayon, Loay, Bohol (MCTC), alleging, inter alia,
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) The Board of Election
Tellers failed to appreciate in favor of protestant one (1) ballot
which
wrote and/or contained protestant’s name near the space provided for
the
chairman; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) The same Board of
Election Tellers failed to appreciate in favor of protestant one (1)
ballot
which, although incorrectly written, nonetheless when read, has a sound
similar to the name of protestant.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, petitioner
failed to append to her election protest a certification of non-forum
shopping
as mandated by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Private
respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Answer, on the grounds
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
The petition states
no cause of action; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
The petition does not
comply with the Supreme Court’s Adm. Circular No. 04-94 Re: Anti-Forum
Shopping.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 20, 1996, petitioner
submitted to the court the requisite Certification of Non-Forum Shopping[7]and
filed an opposition[8]
to the motion to dismiss claiming that her failure to comply with
Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 was merely a technical
deficiency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The MCTC issued an Order
dated May 23, 1996 granting the motion to dismiss of private respondent
and dismissing the election protest of petitioner.[9]
The latter filed a motion for reconsideration[10]
of said order, insisting that her failure to submit the requisite
certification
on non-forum shopping had already been cured when she filed the
requisite
certification on May 20, 1996 but the MCTC issued an order denying said
motion.[11]
Petitioner received a copy of said order on June 4, 1996. Instead of
appealing
said order of the MCTC to the Commission on Elections, petitioner filed
with the Regional Trial Court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and
Mandamus, for the nullification of the aforesaid orders of the MCTC on
June 20, 1996.[12]
Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the MCTC committed a grave abuse
of
its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing
the
said orders. Private respondent filed an Answer and/or Motion to Dismiss[13]
the petition, alleging, inter alia, that petitioner had a plain, speedy
and adequate remedy via an appeal to the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)
from the order of dismissal of the MCTC but failed to avail of said
remedy;
hence, her petition with the RTC was improper. Private respondent
likewise
averred that the MCTC did not commit any grave abuse of its discretion
in issuing the assailed orders. On September 11, 1996, the RTC issued
an
Order[14]
dismissing the petition, on the grounds that: (a) it had no
jurisdiction
over the petition; (b) the MCTC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s
election protest; and, (c) the remedy of petitioner was to appeal to
the
COMELEC from said orders and not to file with the RTC a petition for
certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[15]
of said order but the RTC issued an order[16]
denying said motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner filed the
instant petition assailing the orders of the RTC and contending that
she
had substantially complied with Administrative Circular No. 04-94 when
she filed the requisite certification of non-forum shopping during the
pendency of her election protest. She avers that the MCTC should have
proceeded
with her election protest and resolved it on its merits instead of
dismissing
the same conformably with the pronouncement of this Court in Loyola vs.
Court of Appeals.[17]
Her proper remedy from the assailed orders of the MCTC was to file a
petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court instead of an appeal to the COMELEC because the MCTC committed
grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in
issuing
said orders.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is denied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The RTC correctly dismissed
the petition for certiorari filed therewith by petitioner. This Court
held
in Melo vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,[18]
that the requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 for a
certificate
of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The subsequent compliance with said
requirement does not excuse a party’s failure to comply therewith in
the
first instance. In those cases where this Court excused the
non-compliance
with the requirement of the submission of a certificate of non-forum
shopping,
it found special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the
strict
application of said Circular clearly unjustified or inequitable. In
this
case, however, the petitioner offered no valid justification for her
failure
to comply with the Circular. Her only excuse is that she overlooked the
deficiency of her election protest and discovered the same after the
private
respondent had filed her motion to dismiss the election protest. Such
an
excuse is patently flimsy and totally unacceptable. If the Court
accepts
petitioner’s justification for her failure to comply with the Circular,
it would be undermining the policy of the law and frustrating the
objective
sought to be attained by the requirement.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner’s reliance
of the pronouncement of this Court in Loyola vs. Court of Appeals, et
al.,[19]
is misplaced. In said case, the protestant submitted the requisite
certification
within the ten-day period for the filing of an election protest. In
this
case, petitioner submitted to the MCTC the requisite certification only
on May 20, 1996, long after the lapse of the ten-day period for her to
file an election protest. The ten-day period for her to file her
defective
election protest was not suspended when she filed her election protest
on May 9, 1996. The submission by petitioner of the requisite
certificate
after the reglementary ten-day period for the filing of an election
protest
did not operate as a substantial compliance with the Circular.[20]
The MCTC, therefore, correctly dismissed the election protest of
petitioner.
Hence, the RTC cannot be faulted for dismissing the petition for
certiorari
of petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The RTC correctly dismissed
the petition for certiorari for the added reason that it had no
appellate
jurisdiction over said petition. Section 49 of Resolution No. 2824 of
the
COMELEC governing the barangay elections on May 6, 1996, promulgated on
February 6, 1996, provides that the COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction
over decisions of the MCTC or MTC on election protests:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SEC. 49. Finality of
proclamation. The proclamation of the winning candidates shall be
final.
However, the Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts/Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts (MeTC/MTC) shall have original jurisdiction over
all
election protest cases, whose decision shall be final. The Commission
en
banc in meritorious cases may entertain a petition for review of the
decision
of the (MeTC/MTC/MCTC) in accordance with the comelec rules of
procedures.
An appeal bond of P2,000.00 shall be required, which shall be
refundable
if the appeal is found meritorious."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The resolution applies
also to a final order of the MCTC dismissing an election protest.
Petitioner
did not perfect her appeal from the MCTC to the COMELEC. Instead, the
petitioner
filed her petition for certiorari with the RTC. The erroneous filing by
the petitioner of her petition with the RTC did not toll the running of
the period for petitioner to perfect her appeal to the COMELEC.[21]
Because of petitioner’s failure to perfect her appeal to the COMELEC
within
the period granted therefor, the Order of the MCTC dismissing her
election
protest had become final and executory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In any case, considering
that the term of office of the officials elected during the May 6, 1996
Sangguniang Kabataan Elections had long expired,[22]
this petition has long become moot and academic.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACCORDINGLY, the instant
petition is hereby DISMISSED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo,
J., (Chairman)
,
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Austria-Martinez,
JJ.
,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Issued by Judge Feliciano S. Maisog, Jr.; Annex L, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Annex L, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex N, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 33-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Annex E, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Annex F, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Annex G, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Annex D, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Annex J, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Annex L, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Annex M, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Annex M, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Annex N, Petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
245 SCRA 477 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
318 SCRA 94 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Tomarong vs. Lubguban, 269 SCRA 624 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Caluoag vs. Comelec, 274 SCRA 405 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Section 50 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824. - The Term of Office. The SK
chairman and members shall hold office for a term of three (3) years;
Provided,
that the officials first elected shall assume office on June 1, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Trinidad vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |