E l e c t i o n B y : M a r y

C o n t e s t s

Definitions: 1. Contest refers to any matter involving the title or claim of title to an elective official made before or after the proclamation of the winner, whether or not the protestant is claiming the office in dispute. 2. Election refers to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of the voters, holding of the lectoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes. 3. Returns refer to the canvass of returns and the proclamation of the winners, together with questions concerning the composition of canvassers and the authenticity of election returns. 4. adversarial proceedings by which matters involving the title or claim to an elective oce, made before or after proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute.

A.Payment of Docket Fee Docket fee is paid to enter in a court calendar or in a record of court proceedings.

Rule 40 - Fees and Charges Section 1. Filing Fees for Election Contests and Quo Warranto. (a) The filing feesfor election contests and quo warranto cases and petitions for certiorari, prohibitionor mandamus filed with the Commission are hereby prescribed as follows: (1) Election protests and quo warranto cases P500.00 for each interest; (2) Counter-protest or protest-in-intervention P500.00.Each interest mentioned above shall pay an additional amount of P10.00 as legalresearch fee in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 4, Republic Act No. 3870, asamended by Presidential Decree No. 200 and Presidential Decree No. 1856. (b) Cash deposits. - In any protest or counter-protest or protest-in-intervention notrequiring ballot revision, the following cash deposits shall be paid by the interestedparty; (1) For each election contest ..... P1,000.00; (2) For each counter-protest or protest-in-intervention P1,000.00.(c) In any protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention requiring ballotrevision the following cash deposits shall be paid by the interested party: (1) For each election contest ..... P5,000.00; (2) For each counter-protest or protest-in-intervention P5,000.00.The cash deposits prescribed above shall be applied to the payment of all expensesincidental to such protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention. Whencircumstances so demand, additional cash deposits may be required. Any unused balance thereof shall be returned to the protestant, counter-protestant orprotestant-intervenor, as the case may be. (d) In case of revision of ballots, there shall be deposited the sum of P350.00 forevery ballot box for the compensation of the revisors at the rate of P100.00 each andas reserve for expenses. (e) If a claim for damages and attorney's fees are set forth in a protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention, an additional filing fee shall be paid at the rate of P300.00 for the first one hundred fifty thousand pesos and P4.00 for every onethousand pesos over the first P150.000.00

Enojas v. Gacott 322 SCRA 272(January 19, 2000) Facts: Judge Gacott is being administratively charged in this case with serious misconduct, inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law. This complaint arose when respondent Judge dismissed an election case on the ground of nonpayment of docket fees, although the case was had been previously admitted and was deemed properly filed by the original Judge (inhibited himself due to relationship to ones of the parties) whom Judge Gacott replaced. Jugde G issued the dismissal order relying on a case (Manchester vs. CA) which states that - a case is deemed commenced only upon the payment of the proper docket fees. To his opinion, the required fees in this case was not yet paid by the protestant. Hence, this complaint charging him primarily with gross ignorance of the law. Held: GUILTY. Based on the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, the election protest was properly filed. In fact, the original Judge already made an order that from the deposit given by the protestant for the expenses of reopening the questioned ballots, an amount shall be allocated for the payment of the required fees. More importantly, the Court held that the Manchester ruling relied upon by respondent Judge does not apply to election cases. In a latter case ( Pahilan), the evil sought to be avoided in the Manchester case does not exist in election cases. Truth is, the filing fee in an election case is fixed and the claim for damages, to which the docket fees shall be made to apply, is merely ancillary to main cause of action and is not even determinative of the courts jurisdiction. While it is true that not every error or mistake of a judge renders him administratively liable, in this case, it is clear that the respondent judge was in utter disregard of established rules amounting to gross ignorance of the law. The Pahilan case was decided long before the respondent made a ruling on the election case. Thus, the respondent judge was duty bound to adhere to, and apply the recent ruling, and he cannot feign ignorance thereof, because the Code of Judicial Ethics requires him to be an embodiment of, among other things, judicial competence. On e of the principal duties of a judge is to be abreast with law and jurisprudence since the administration of justice requires continuous study of the law and jurisprudence. A perusal of the challenge order reveals that respondent judge failed to live up to what is expected of him as a dispenser of justice. An election protest should not be dismissed despite a deficie ncy in the docket fee because it involves public interest.

Loyola vs COMELEC (March 25, 1997) Facts: Roy Loyola was proclaimed winner as the duly elected Mayor of the municipality of Carmona, Cavite in 1995. However a protest was filed by Rolando Rosas before the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite. Loyola filed a petition to dismiss the case on the ground that Rosas failed to pay the required filing fee of Php 300.00(only Php32.00). RTC denied his petition, hence a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC Judge. Held: RTC was directed to resolve the protest, but part of the decision reads, This decision, however, must not provide relief to parties in future cases involving inadequate payment of filing fees in election protests. Pahilan, Gatchalian and this case would no longer provide any excuse for such shortcoming. Elsewise stated, these cases now bar any claim of good faith, excusable negligence or mistake in any failure to pay the full amount of filing fees in election cases which may be filed after the promulgation of this decision. An election protest should be dismissed if the correct docket fee is not paid.

B.Verification Rule 35 Sec. 6. Petition to be Verified. - All petitions shall be verified by the parties filingthem or their attorneys. Any subsequent pleading based on facts which ought to be proved shall likewise beverified

Soller v. COMELEC G.R. NO. 139853 (September 5, 2000)

Facts: This case involves an election protest filed by respondent against petitioner who wasproclaimed as mayor. The protest included a verification stating that it was respondent who prepared the protest and, that he read and understood all its allegations. Held: The SC declared the verification as insufficient because of the failure of respondent tostate that the contents of the election protest are true, correct and of his personal knowledge.The SC held that the protest should be considered as an unsigned pleading because of the lackof the proper verification. C.Certificate Of Absence Of Forum Shopping Election protest should contain certificate of non-forum shopping. Barroso v. Ampig G.R. NO. 138218 (March 17, 2000) Facts: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for mayor. Private respondent filed several cases against the petitioner with the COMELEC. He also filed criminal complaints witht h e L a w D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e C O M E L E C . P e t i t i o n e r w a s p r o c l a i m e d t h e w i n n e r . P r i v a t e respondent filed an election protest with the RTC. Of the 5 cases which he had previously filed,he only mentioned the 3 as pending. Held: Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not apply to election cases, except by analogy or in a suppletory character. Election contests are subject to the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.Rule 35 which is applicable in this case, does not require that the petition contesting the election of a m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r a n y s t a t e m e n t a g a i n s t f o r u m shopping. Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure suppletorily, the failure to comply with the non-forum shopping requirements does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice..

D. W h en to F il e 1.President and Vice President 1.1. Protest: 30 days (PET) 1.2. Quo Warranto: 1o days (PET) 2 Senators 2.1. Protest: 15 days (SET) 2.2. Quo Warranto: 10 days (SET) 3.Congressmen 3.1. 10 days(RET) 4. Regional, Provincial, City Officials 4.1. 10days (OEC) 5. Municipal Officials 5.1. 10 days (OEC) 6. Barangay Officials 6.1. !0 days (OEC) 6. Sangguniang Kabataan 6.1 10 days (OEC)

Effect of resumption of old post on the election protest Santiago vs. Ramos, PET Case No. 001, Feb. 13, 1996 In assuming the office of Senator, the protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn her electionprotests, thereby making it moot. The term of office of the Senators elected in the 8 May 1995 election is six years, the first three of whichcoincides with the last three years of the term of the President elected in the 11 May 1992 synchronizedelections. The latter would be Protestant Santiagos term if she would succeed in proving in the instantprotest that she was the true winner in the 1992 elections. In assuming the office of Senator then, theProtestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn this protest, or at the very least, in the language of Moraleja, abandoned her determination to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot theinstant protest. Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate theaura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential election, thereby enhancing the all-to crucialpolitical stability of the nation during this period of national recovery. It must also be stressed that underthe Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, an election protest may be summarily dismissed,regardless of the public policy and public interest implications thereof, on the following grounds: (1) Thepetition is insufficient in form and substance; (2) The petition is filed beyond the periods provided in Rules14 and 15 hereof; (3) The filing fee is not paid within the periods provided for in these Rules; (4) The cashdeposit, or the first P 100,000.00 thereof, is not paid within 10 days after the filing of the protest; and (5) The petition or copies thereof and the annexes thereto filed with the Tribunal are not clearly legible. Othergrounds for a motion to dismiss, e.g., those provided in the Rules of Court which apply in a suppletorycharacter, may likewise be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the answer. After which, the Tribunal may,in its discretion, hold a preliminary hearing on such grounds. In sum, if an election be dismissed ontechnical grounds, then it must be, for a decidedly stronger reason, if it has become moot due to itsabandonment by the Protestant. The protestant abandoned her election protest when she waived the revision of the remaining ballots andfailed to inform the tribunal whether she still intends to present additional evidence after the completion of the revision of the ballots from the pilot areas This Tribunal cannot close its eyes to the fact that the Protestant has decided to waive the revision of theremaining unrevised ballots from 4,017 precincts out of the 17,527 precincts of the designated three pilotareas. This is an unabashed reversal from her original stand in her Motion and Manifestation dated 18October 1993. Taking this into account, this Tribunal declared in its resolution of 21 October 1993: Afterdeliberating on the foregoing pleadings and the arguments of the parties, the Tribunal rules for theProtestant insofar as the revision of the remaining ballot boxes from her pilot areas are concerned, andagainst the immediate application of Rule 61 of the Rules of the Tribunal to the Protestee in respect of theCounter-Protest. At this stage of the proceedings in this case it cannot be reasonably determined whetherthe revised ballots are considerable enough to establish a trend either in favor of or against theProtestant as would justify an appropriate action contemplated in Rule 61 of the Rules of the Tribunal, orwhether the unrevised ballots from said areas would not, in the language of the Protestant, materiallyaffect the result of the representative sample of the ballot boxes so far revised. As to the 1,300 ballotboxes from Makati, the proper time to raise the objections to the ballot boxes and its contents would beduring the revision stage. Consequently, we resolved therein to: A. ORDER the revision of the remaining unrevised ballot boxes enumerated in the aforequoted paragraphA to the 5 October 1995 Resolution and for the purpose to DiRECT the Acting Clerk of Court of the Tribunalto collect said ballot boxes and other election documents and paraphernalia from their respectivecustodians in the event that their revisions in connection with other election protests in which they areinvolved have been terminated, and if such revisions are not yet completed, to coordinate with theappropriate tribunal or court in which such other election protests are pending and which have alreadyobtained custody of the ballot boxes and started revision with the end in view of either seeking expeditiousrevisions in such other election protests or obtaining the custody of the ballot boxes and related electiondocuments and paraphernalia for their immediate delivery to the Tribunal; and B. REQUIRE the Protestant to inform the Tribunal, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, if after thecompletion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas she would present evidence in connectiontherewith. Until the present,however, the Protestant has not informed the Tribunal whether after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she still intends to present evidence inconnection therewith. This failure then, is nothing short of a manifest indication that she no longer intendsto do so.