G.R. Nos. 117955-58 March 13, 1997
Herminigildo Tomarong, Venancio Sumagang, Francisco Magsayo and Federico Cuevas, petitioners, vs. Hon. Antonio C. Lubguban, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, 2nd MCTC of Lazi, Siquijor, and Antonio Bangquiao, Demetrio Lumacad, Rico Tumapon and Felix Tamiat, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, defeated candidates in the May 1994 Barangay Elections, timely filed separate election protests before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The winning candidates moved to dismiss the protests because petitioners failed to attach the certification on non-forum shopping required by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Petitioners argued the Circular was inapplicable to election contests, which are special summary proceedings, and that forum shopping was impossible since the MCTC had exclusive jurisdiction.
Initially, the MCTC denied the motions to dismiss, agreeing that election cases were not covered. Later, upon joint suggestion of the parties, the court sought an opinion from higher authorities. The Court Administrator opined that the certification was required. Consequently, the MCTC reversed itself and dismissed the protests. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this certiorari petition alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Is Administrative Circular No. 04-94, requiring a certification on non-forum shopping, applicable to election contests filed in municipal trial courts?

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 applies to election contests. The Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments. First, nothing in the Circular exempts election cases; its language expressly applies to initiatory pleadings “in all courts and agencies” other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The principle “ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus” (where the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish) governs.
Second, the Court dismissed the claim that forum shopping is impossible due to the MCTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. It noted the possibility of a party erroneously availing of other remedies, filing in multiple MTCs despite venue errors, or mistakenly filing in the Regional Trial Court. The Circular’s purpose to curb forum shopping remains relevant.
However, the Court distinguished this case from Loyola v. Court of Appeals, where a certification filed one day late was deemed a substantial compliance because it was still within the reglementary period for filing the protest. Here, petitioners submitted their certifications eighteen days after filing, well beyond the ten-day period for filing an election protest. This belated submission could not be considered substantial compliance, as it would render the Circular’s mandatory requirement ineffective. Therefore, the MCTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the protests. The petition was dismissed.