G.R. No. L-56598 March 15, 1985
CORNELIO R. CALABIG, petitioner, vs. HON. FLORENTINO M. VILLANUEVA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch V, and VENERANDO BALDEMOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cornelio R. Calabig and private respondent Venerando Baldemor were rival candidates for Mayor of Paete, Laguna in the January 30, 1980 elections. Calabig was proclaimed winner by a margin of two votes. Baldemor filed an election protest. In his original answer, Calabig denied the allegations and, by way of counter-protest, alleged that Baldemor was a disqualified candidate due to a Comelec resolution denying due course to his certificate of candidacy on grounds of turncoatism. The Supreme Court, in a related case (G.R. No. 42426), had ruled that the appropriate remedy for Baldemor, who lost by two votes, was the pending election protest in the lower court.
Calabig subsequently filed a motion to admit an amended answer, seeking to amplify his affirmative defense regarding Baldemor’s disqualification. He prayed that a preliminary hearing be conducted on this disqualification issue before any revision of ballots in the election protest, arguing that its resolution would be determinative of the protest’s outcome. The respondent judge denied the admission of the amended answer and scheduled the revision of ballots.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the admission of petitioner’s amended answer and in refusing to hold a preliminary hearing on the issue of private respondent’s disqualification prior to the revision of ballots.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on procedural efficiency and the nature of election contests. The Court held that the respondent judge acted within his sound discretion in denying the amended answer. An amendment that merely elaborates on an issue already pleaded in the original pleading, such as the disqualification defense already present in Calabig’s original answer, is not indispensable. The lower court could properly proceed to trial on the basis of the original pleadings.
More critically, the Court ruled that it was not erroneous to proceed with the revision of ballots without first resolving the disqualification issue. In an election protest, all issues raised by the parties, including grounds for disqualification, should be heard and decided jointly in a single proceeding. To require a separate preliminary hearing on disqualification before examining the ballots would cause undue delay, especially given the impending expiration of the term of the contested office. Such delay could effectively nullify the sovereign will of the electorate. The proper course is for the trial court to hear the election protest and the intertwined disqualification issues concurrently for a complete and expeditious resolution. The plea for the judge’s inhibition was also rendered moot by a judicial reassignment.