G.R. No. L-25758 February 18, 1967
JOAQUIN ORTEGA, protestant-appellant, vs. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

On December 14, 1963, Joaquin Ortega filed an election protest (Election Case 1913) in the Court of First Instance of La Union, contesting the election of Eulogio F. de Guzman as provincial governor in the November 12, 1963 elections. After the protestee filed an answer with counter-protest and the protestant filed a reply, the issues were joined. On September 8, 1964, the protestant filed a “Motion for authority to submit some contested ballots for examination by expert,” which was granted. The expert, Col. Jolly Bugarin, examined some ballots on October 26 and 27, 1964. However, no further examination of the remaining ballots occurred, and Col. Bugarin never submitted a report, despite notifications from the protestant’s counsel in November and December 1964 that the examination would continue. The lower court also ordered the photographing of all ballots on December 16, 1964, but this was not done. On October 13, 1965, the protestee moved to dismiss the protest on grounds of failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time and the protestant’s loss of legal personality due to his candidacy for another office (as evidenced by his certificate of candidacy for Representative filed on September 9, 1965). The protestant’s counsel was granted time to file a written opposition but only orally opposed the motion. On October 28, 1965, the lower court dismissed the protest on the ground of “abandonment of the case, failure to prosecute.” The protestant’s motion for reconsideration was denied on January 12, 1966, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the election protest on the ground of “abandonment of the case, failure to prosecute.”

RULING

No, the lower court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that a court may dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, a matter within the court’s sound discretion based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The record showed that from December 1, 1964, to October 13, 1965 (over ten months), the protest remained dormant due to the protestant’s inaction. The expert failed to continue his examination or submit a report, and no replacement was appointed or explanation given to the court until belatedly, when it was revealed the expert was hired for another case. The protestant’s failure to file a written opposition to the motion to dismiss, opting only for oral opposition, further indicated a lack of interest. Additionally, the protestant’s candidacy for Congressman in the 1965 elections and his subsequent filing of two election protests for a congressional seat against another candidate demonstrated he was more earnest in seeking the congressional position, relegating the governatorial protest to the background. The Supreme Court emphasized the peremptory mandate that election contests be concluded speedily to resolve doubts about the electorate’s will and maintain public faith in government. Thus, the dismissal was upheld.