MARIFE C. ESTOMAGULANG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANTONIO T. DURANGO. G.R.

No. 228301. 11 July 2017. EN BANC.

Parties:
Petitioner - MARIFE C. ESTOMAGULANG
Respondent – COMELEC and ANTONIO T. DURANGO

A petition for certiorari that is laden with technical defects such as the lack of material
dates, failure to attach duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed decision and
failure to comply with the requirement that allegations in a verification must be based on
personal knowledge of authentic records by themselves call for its outright dismissal.

Estomagulang and Durango vied for the position of Punong Barangay of Bulibulihan, Mabinay,
Negros Oriental. Each received 256 votes. Estomagulang was proclaimed the winner after the tossing of
coins. Durango led an election protest alleging that, among others, the votes for Durango were considered
stray, and that other valid votes were not counted in his favor. The MTC declared a tie, each party garnered
263 votes. The parties filed their respective appeals. The Second Division issued a resolution declaring
Durango the winner with 263 votes while the petitioner garnering 259 votes. The Commission (En Banc)
upheld it and Durango was declared as the duly-elected Punong Barangay. Estomagulang filed an appeal
through Petition for Certiorari. However, Durango filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petition
contained technical defects: lack of material dates, attachments were mere photocopies of the assailed
decision and resolution, and verification stated that the allegations were based on her "own knowledge and
belief." Rule on the matter.

The Petition for Certiorari should be dismissed for lack of merit. First, as required by Section 5,
Rule 64 of ROC, the material dates must be stated on the petitioner as it will aid the Court in determining
whether it is timely led. The petition should state not only the receipt by the petitioner of the resolution of
the COMELEC En Banc denying her motion for reconsideration, but also the date when she received the
decision of the Second Division. Secondly, Estomagulang should have instead attached either the duplicate
originals or certified true copies thereof pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64. Finally, the basis of “own knowledge
and belief” is inadequate compliance with the requirement under Section 4, Rule 7 that the same should be
based on "personal knowledge or based on authentic records."