Robles v. HRET FACTS Petitioner Virgilio Robles and private respondent Romeo Santos were candidates for the position of Congressman of the st district of Caloocan Cit! in the last last "a! # $%& $%& congr congress ession ional al electi election ons. s. Petitio Petitioner ner Robles Robles was proclaimed the winner on 'ecember ()# $%&. Rep. Virgilio Robles elected to st 'ist. of Caloocan. Romeo Santos then filed an elec. contest w* HRET +electoral fra,d - irreg,larities - called for re/co,nting * re/appreciation of votes. votes. Santos# Santos# filed "otion "otion to 0ithdraw 0ithdraw Contest b,t later filed 1rgent "otion to Recall*'isregard his Previo,s "otion. st "otion not acted ,pon b! HRET# (nd "otion granted. Robles claimed that the st motion divested HRET of 2,risdiction. 3SS1E 0het 0hethe herr HRET HRET acte acted d with witho, o,tt 2,ris 2,risdi dict ctio ion n or with with grav grave e ab,s ab,se e of discretion th,s giving the S,preme 4,risdiction over the s,b2ect matter R15367 The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining ,ncontested precincts# witho,t an! action on the part of respondent trib,nal# does not b! itself divest the trib,nal of its 2,risdiction over the case. 3t is an established doctrine that 2,risdiction# once ac8,ired# is not lost at the instance of the the part partie ies s b,t b,t cont contin in,e ,es s ,nti ,ntill the the case case is term termin inat ated ed.. Cert Certai ainl! nl!## the the Trib,nal retains the a,thorit! to grant or den! the "otion# and the withdrawal becomes effective onl! when the "otion is granted. To hold otherwise wo,ld permit a part! to deprive the Trib,nal of 2,risdiction alread! ac8,ired. Petition is dismissed.
G.R. No. 86647 February 5, 1990 REP. VIRGILIO P. ROBLES, petitioner# vs. HON. HOSE OF REPRESEN!"!IVES ELE#!OR"L !RIBN"L a$% RO&EO L. S"N!OS, respondents. Virgilio P. Robles for and in his own behalf. Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro & Arcilla Law Offices for private respondent. &E'I"L'E", J.: This is a petition for certiorari with pra!er for a temporar! restraining order assailing the resol,tions of the Ho,se of Representatives Electoral Trib,nal +HRET9 dated September $# $%% granting herein private respondent:s 1rgent "otion to Recall and 'isregard 0ithdrawal of Protest# and ( dated 4an,ar! (;# $%$# den!ing petitioner:s "otion for Reconsideration. Petitioner Virgilio Robles and private respondent Romeo Santos were candidates for the position of Congressman of the st district of Caloocan Cit! in the last "a! # $%& congressional elections. Petitioner Robles was proclaimed the winner on 'ecember ()# $%&.
ed b! the commission of electoral fra,ds and irreg,larities in vario,s forms# on the da! of elections# d,ring the co,nting of votes and d,ring the canvassing of the election ret,rns. He li?ewise pra!ed for the reco,nting of the gen,ine ballots in all the )(@ contested precincts +pp. ;/(@# Rollo.
Trib,nal9 +a Protestee:s 1rgent "otion to S,spend Revision# dated September %# $%%D +b Protestant:s "otion to 0ithdraw Protest on 1nrevised Precincts and "otion to Set Case for Hearing# dated September (# $%%D and +c Protestant:s 1rgent "otion to Recall and 'isregard 0ithdrawal of Protest# dated September # $%%. 1pon the filing of Protestant:s "otion to 0ithdraw Protest# the revision of ballots was stopped and s,ch revision remains s,spended ,ntil now. 3n view of s,ch s,spension# there is no need to act on Protestee:s "otion. The "otion to 0ithdraw Protest# has been withdrawn b! Protestant:s later motion# and therefore need not be acted ,pon. 0HEREF
respondent HRET Contrar! to petitioner:s claim that the motion to withdraw was favorabl! acted ,pon# the records show that it was onl! on September $# $%% when respondent HRET resolved said motion together with two other motions. The 8,estioned resol,tion of September $# $%% resolved three +) motions# namel!9 a Protestee:s 1rgent "otion to S,spend Revision dated September %# $%%D b Protestant:s "otion to 0ithdraw Protest on 1nrevised Precincts and "otion to Set Case for Hearing dated September (# $%%D and c Protestant:s 1rgent "otion to Recall and 'isregard 0ithdrawal of Protest# dated September # $%%. The resol,tion resolved the three +) motions as follows9 0HEREF v. 6a>areno# 7.R. 6o. 5/ )&$))# April =# $%%# ;@ SCRA . 0e agree with respondent Ho,se of Representatives Electoral Trib,nal when it held9 0e cannot agree with Protestee:s contention that Protestant:s "otion to 0ithdraw Protest on 1nrevised Precincts effectivel! withdrew the precincts referred to therein from the protest even before the Trib,nal has acted thereon. Certainl!# the Trib,nal retains the a,thorit! to grant or den! the "otion# and the withdrawal becomes effective onl! when the "otion is granted. To hold otherwise wo,ld permit a part! to deprive the Trib,nal of 2,risdiction alread! ac8,ired. 0e hold therefore that this Trib,nal retains the power and the a,thorit! to grant or den! Protestant:s "otion to 0ithdraw# if onl! to ins,re that the Trib,nal retains s,fficient a,thorit! to see to it that the will of the electorate is ascertained. Since Protestant:s "otion to 0ithdraw Protest on the 1nrevised Precincts had not been acted ,pon b! this Trib,nal before it was recalled b! the Protestant# it did not have the effect of removing the precincts covered thereb! from the protest. 3f these precincts were not withdrawn from the protest# then the granting of Protestant:s 1rgent "otion to Recall and 'isregard 0ithdrawal of Protest did not amo,nt to allowing the refiling of protest be!ond the reglementar! period. 0here the co,rt has 2,risdiction over the s,b2ect matter# its orders ,pon all 8,estions pertaining to the ca,se are orders within its 2,risdiction# and however erroneo,s the! ma! be# the! cannot be corrected b! certiorari +Santos v. Co,rt of Appeals# 7.R. 6o. =;;# 4,l! (%#$%&#=( SCRA )&%D Paramo,nt 3ns,rance Corp. v. 5,na# 7.R. 6o. ;@# "arch ;#$%&#% SCRA =;. This r,le more appropriatel! applies to respondent HRET whose independence as a constit,tional bod! has time and again been ,pheld b! 1s in man! cases. As eplained in the case of Laatin v . !he "ouse of Representatives #lectoral !ribunal and !i$bol # 7.R. 6o. %($&# 'ecember %#
$%%# th,s9 The ,se of the word sole emphasi>es the ecl,sive character of the 2,risdiction conferred Angara v. Electoral Commission# supra #at ;(G. The eercise of the Power b! the Electoral Commission ,nder the $)= Constit,tion has been described as intended to be complete and ,nimpaired as if it had remained originall! in the legislat,re %d . at &=G. Earlier# this grant of power to the legislat,re was characteri>ed b! 4,stice "alcolm as f,ll# clear and complete Veloso v. oard of Canvassers of 5e!te and Samar# )$ Phil. %%; +$$G. 1nder the amended $)= Constit,tion# the power was ,n8,alifiedl! reposed ,pon the Electoral Trib,nal S,anes v. Chief Acco,ntant of the Senate# % Phil. %% +$%G and it remained as f,ll# clear and complete as that previo,sl! granted the legislat,re and the Electoral Commission 5achica v. Iap# 7.R. 6o. 5/(=)&$# September (=# $;%# (= SCRA @G. The same ma! be said with regard to the 2,risdiction of the Electoral Trib,nals ,nder the $%& Constit,tion. Th,s# 2,dicial review of decisions or final resol,tions of the Ho,se Electoral Trib,nal is +th,s possible onl! in the eercise of this Co,rt:s so/called etraordinar! 2,risdiction# . . . ,pon a determination that the trib,nal:s decision or resol,tion was rendered witho,t or in ecess of its 2,risdiction# or with grave ab,se of discretion or# paraphrasing orrera# ,pon a clear showing of s,ch arbitrar! and improvident ,se b! the Trib,nal of its power as constit,tes a denial of d,e process of law# or ,pon a demonstration of a ver! clear ,nmitigated ERR
The allegation of petitioner that he was deprived of d,e process when respondent trib,nal rendered a partial determination p,rs,ant to Section % of the HRET r,les and fo,nd that Santos made a recover! of (;& votes after the revision of the first twent!/five per cent of the contested precincts has li?ewise# no basis. The partial determination was arrived at onl! b! a simple addition of the votes ad2,dicated to each part! in the revision of which both parties were properl! represented. 3t wo,ld not be amiss to state at this point that an election protest is impressed with p,blic interest in the sense that the p,blic is interested in ?nowing what happened in the elections +'imaporo v. Estipona# supra.# for this reason# private interests m,st !ield to what is for the common good. ACC
