GR 94681; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94681 ; July 18, 1991
JEREMIAS F. DAYO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AMADEO M. GAASIS, respondents.
FACTS
An election protest was filed by Amadeo Gaasis against Jeremias Dayo concerning the January 25, 1988, elections for councilor of Sampaloc, Quezon. Gaasis alleged fraud and irregularities in the counting of ballots in eight precincts and that 203 voters in one precinct were disenfranchised. Dayo denied the allegations, asserting that Gaasis’s watchers never protested during the counting or canvass. The trial court consolidated this protest with a separate mayoralty protest between other candidates. Subsequently, the trial court issued a summary judgment dismissing Gaasis’s protest. It relied on admissions obtained from interrogatories propounded in the consolidated mayoralty case, where neither Gaasis nor Dayo was a party, reasoning that the lack of written objections by watchers and the official nature of election minutes warranted dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the trial court’s summary judgment and reinstating the election protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was fundamentally erroneous. First, the admissions from interrogatories used as the basis for dismissal were legally inadmissible against Gaasis and Dayo. Interrogatories may only be used between adverse parties in the same case. The interrogatories were from the mayoralty protest, a distinct case involving different parties, and there was no showing Gaasis agreed to their adoption or was given a chance to answer them. Using them violated due process.
Second, and more critically, summary judgment is generally inapplicable to election protests. The Omnibus Election Code mandates that when allegations of fraud or irregularities warrant, the court must order the examination of ballots and counting of votes to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The rules on summary judgment, designed for ordinary civil money claims, do not apply where public interest in the integrity of the electoral process is paramount. By dismissing the protest summarily, the trial court denied itself the opportunity to examine the best evidence—the ballots themselves—based merely on procedural technicalities. Allegations of fraud are sufficient to justify a revision of ballots without requiring prior parole evidence. The COMELEC correctly reinstated the protest to allow Gaasis to substantiate his allegations through a proper recount.