Abeja v.

Tañada

FACTS
 In 1992, Rosauro Radovan was declared the winner of the mayoralty elections in Pagbilao, Quezon.
His rival, Evelyn Abeja, filed an election protest where she questioned the results in 22 precincts.
Radovan filed a counter protest where he questioned the results in 36 precincts with counterclaim
for damages. Abeja then caused the revision of the ballots covering the 22 precincts and paid the
expenses therefor. Abeja then urged Radovan to cause the revision of the 36 precincts he is
questioning. Radovan however refused and so Abeja filed a motion that a judgment be rendered
based on the results from the 22 precincts. The original judge did not rule on the motion before he
was transferred. Before the judge could be replaced, Radovan died. Radovan was then substituted
by the vice mayor (Conrado de Rama) and Radovan’s wife, Ediltrudes. Ediltrudes substituted his
deceased husband insofar as the latter’s counterclaim for damages is concerned.
 In 1993, the new judge, Federico Tañada ruled that Abeja’s motion is premature because the 36
precincts are not yet revised. Tañada agreed with Radovan that the 36 precincts may only be
revised if Abeja can show that she (Abeja) leads by at least one point vote over Radovan.

ISSUE & RULING

Whether or not the judge is correct. NO.
 Considering that this petition involves an election protest heard by a regional trial court, the
Comelec Rules of Procedure are controlling.
 There is no rule in election protests cases which states that a protestant (Abeja) must first show
that she won in the precincts she is contesting before evidence on the protestee’s (Radovan)
counter-protest can be had. This will render the protestant’s case to be at the mercy of the
protestee who can just prolong the case until his term is over.
o Consequently, private respondent must be deemed to have waived or abandoned his
counter-protest. The applicable Comelec rules provide for the presentation of evidence by
the parties in succession in the order or sequence provided under Sec. 2, rule 17 (Comelec
Rules) which must be submitted within a reasonable time, if not immediately after the
revision of the precincts covered by the protest proper. By insisting that the counter-
protested precincts should be revised only if it is shown after the revision of the protested
precincts that petitioner, his opponent, leads by at least one (1) vote, private respondent is
adopting a selfserving rule without legal sanction calculated to unduly prolong the litigaton.
 Furthermore, it is readily apparent from the provisions of the applicable Comelec Rules that the
court shall render its decision after both parties shall have presented their respective evidence.
Nowhere in the said provisions is it indicated that presentation of evidence by the protestee may
continue after the court has ruled on the evidence of the protestant and determine the number of
votes obtained by the latter. Otherwise, it would be possible for the protestee to prolong the protest
and render it moot by expiration of the term of office contested.
 Also, the Supreme Court ruled that the substitution of Ediltrudes for her deceased husband is
erroneous. This is notwithstanding the counter-claim for damages in the counter protest. Public
office is personal to the incumbent and is not a property which passes to his heirs. The heirs may
no longer prosecute the deceased protestee’s counter-claim for damages against the protestant for
that was extinguished when death terminated his right to occupy the contested office.