G.R. No. 112283 August 30, 1994
EVELYN ABEJA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE FEDERICO TAÑADA, Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 58, and ROSAURO RADOVAN (deceased), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Evelyn Abeja and private respondent Rosauro Radovan were candidates for mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, in the May 1992 elections. Radovan was proclaimed winner. Abeja filed an election protest covering 22 precincts. Radovan filed an Answer with a Counter-Protest covering 36 precincts. During pre-trial, Radovan’s counsel moved that the 36 counter-protested precincts be revised only if, after the revision of the 22 protested precincts, Abeja leads by at least one vote. The trial court deemed the matter premature. The revision of the 22 protested precincts was completed. Abeja urged Radovan to commence revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts, but he refused. Abeja moved to consider the counter-protest withdrawn. The presiding judge, Judge Lopez, did not rule on the motion but indicated he might not allow further revision after ruling on the 22 precincts. All incidents, including the revisors’ report, were submitted for resolution without the counter-protested ballots being revised. Judge Lopez issued an order ruling on each contested ballot from the 22 precincts but did not sum the votes or declare a winner. Abeja then filed a “Motion to Determine Votes, to Proclaim Winner and to Allow Assumption of Office,” claiming a lead of 281 votes based on her computation. Radovan had since died and was substituted. The new judge, respondent Judge Tañada, denied Abeja’s motion as premature, ruling a valid decision could not be rendered until the 36 counter-protested precincts were revised, and ordered their revision.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the revision of the 36 counter-protested precincts and denying petitioner’s motion for proclamation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a counter-protest and the duty of the protestee to prosecute it diligently. A counter-protest is not a separate action but a defensive remedy contingent upon the protestant’s success. However, the protestee bears the burden of proving it. The Court found that private respondent Radovan, by persistently refusing to pay revision fees and advance the revision process despite opportunities, effectively abandoned his counter-protest. His conditional offer to revise only if Abeja gained a one-vote lead was a dilatory tactic, as the purpose of a counter-protest is to overcome any lead the protestant might obtain. The Court ruled that the counter-protest should be deemed withdrawn due to Radovan’s inaction and failure to prosecute it with diligence, which prejudiced the protestant’s right to a speedy disposition. Furthermore, the substitution of Radovan’s widow was erroneous, as a public office is personal and not heritable, and any counterclaim for damages was extinguished upon his death. Respondent judge’s orders were set aside, and he was directed to dismiss the counter-protest and resolve Abeja’s motion for proclamation.