GR 124033; (October, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124033 September 25, 1997
ANTONIO T. KHO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EMILIO A. ESPINOSA, respondents.
FACTS
On May 30, 1995, petitioner Antonio T. Kho, a losing candidate in the 1995 gubernatorial elections in Masbate, filed an election protest against private respondent Emilio A. Espinosa to set aside his proclamation as Provincial Governor. The COMELEC issued summons to Espinosa on June 1, 1995, requiring an answer within five (5) days from receipt. Espinosa received the summons and protest on June 6, 1995, making his deadline to file an answer June 11, 1995. However, Espinosa filed his answer with counter-protest only on June 15, 1995, which was four days late. Kho filed an omnibus motion on June 19, 1995, praying for a general denial to be entered due to Espinosa’s failure to answer, and a motion to expunge the belated answer on June 24, 1995. The COMELEC First Division issued an order on July 26, 1995, admitting Espinosa’s answer with counter-protest and requiring a supplemental pleading. Kho received this order on September 20, 1995, and subsequently filed a motion to resolve his pending motion to expunge and a motion for reconsideration of subsequent orders implementing the July 26 order. The COMELEC First Division denied Kho’s motions, holding that the July 26 order was not timely challenged and that the subsequent orders were merely interlocutory. Kho then filed a manifestation and motion to the COMELEC en banc, which was denied by the First Division on February 28, 1996, refusing to elevate the case. Kho filed the instant petition, arguing the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the belated answer with counter-protest and in refusing to elevate the case en banc.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Commission on Elections (First Division) committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the belatedly filed answer with counter-protest of private respondent Espinosa.
2. Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to elevate the case to the Commission en banc.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in admitting the belated answer with counter-protest. Under Section 1, Rule 10 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, an answer must be filed within five days from service of summons and the petition. Espinosa received the documents on June 6, 1995, making his deadline June 11, 1995. His filing on June 15, 1995, was four days late without a motion for extension. A counter-protest must be filed within the period provided by law; otherwise, the forum loses jurisdiction to entertain it. The order dated July 26, 1995, admitting the answer, and all subsequent related orders were void for having been issued without jurisdiction. This jurisdictional infirmity could not be cured by Kho’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the July 26 order, as Kho had persistently assailed the late filing through earlier motions.
2. No. The Supreme Court found the COMELEC First Division correct in not elevating the case to the Commission en banc. The orders in question (July 26, 1995; November 15, 1995; February 28, 1996) were interlocutory orders, as they ruled upon an incidental issue (admission of the answer) and did not finally dispose of the case. The Constitution requires that election cases be heard and decided first in division, and motions for reconsideration of decisions are decided by the Commission en banc. The present controversy did not fall under any instance in the COMELEC Rules where a division must refer a matter to the en banc. The proper remedy for aggrieved parties against such interlocutory orders is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 65.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition was GRANTED. The Order dated July 26, 1995, admitting the answer with counter-protest, and all related orders pertaining to its admission were declared void. The COMELEC First Division was directed to proceed with the hearing of the protest case without considering the answer with counter-protest of private respondent Espinosa.