G.R. No. 117186. June 29, 1995. ALAN M. LOYOLA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JUDGE MARIA CARILLO ZALDIVAR in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Kalibo, Branch 6; THE HON. EDUARDO R. AVELINO, in his capacity as the presiding Judge of the MCTC, Macato-Tangalan, and ANICETO FERNANDEZ III, respondents.
FACTS:

Petitioner Alan M. Loyola was proclaimed the elected Punong Barangay on May 10, 1994. On May 18, 1994, the defeated candidate, private respondent Aniceto Fernandez III, filed an election protest with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). This initiatory pleading was not accompanied by the certification of non-forum shopping required under Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The following day, May 19, 1994, Fernandez submitted the required certification. Loyola moved to dismiss the protest for this alleged fatal defect, arguing the belated filing could not cure a jurisdictional flaw. The MCTC denied the motion, ruling the circular was procedural and its requirement was not jurisdictional, and that the subsequent filing constituted substantial compliance.
Loyola then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was denied. The RTC held that amendments to a complaint are a matter of right before an answer is filed. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed Loyola’s petition for review, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the lower courts’ rulings that the election protest was not dismissible for the private respondent’s failure to attach the certification of non-forum shopping simultaneously with the filing of the initiatory pleading.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court clarified that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory. However, its mandatory nature means it cannot be dispensed with entirely, not that it prohibits substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. The filing of the required certification a day after the protest, but well within the period for filing the protest itself, was deemed a substantial compliance that served the circular’s purpose of curbing forum-shopping.
The Court rejected the MCTC’s alternative reasoning that the circular was inapplicable to election cases. The circular’s language expressly applies to “initiatory pleadings in all courts,” with no exemption for election cases. The possibility of forum-shopping—such as filing in multiple MTCs or in the wrong court—remains, making the certification requirement pertinent. The paramount public interest in the speedy determination of election contests, which are to be resolved summarily, militates against dismissing protests on purely technical grounds where the certification is subsequently submitted. The MCTC was directed to proceed with the election protest with dispatch.