GR 139357; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139357 May 5, 2000
ABDULMADID P.B. MARUHOM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HADJI JAMIL DIMAPORO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Abdulmadid Maruhom and private respondent Hadji Jamil Dimaporo were candidates for Mayor of Marogong, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1998 elections. Maruhom was proclaimed winner by a margin of 20 votes. Dimaporo filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging fraud and irregularities in the automated counting. Maruhom filed an Answer with Counter-Protest. After the RTC constituted a Revision Committee and directed the commencement of ballot revision, Maruhom filed a Motion to Dismiss the protest, arguing the ballot boxes had been violated, an automated election did not permit a manual recount, and Dimaporo was guilty of forum shopping.
The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. Maruhom elevated the matter to the COMELEC, which dismissed his petition. The COMELEC held that the Motion to Dismiss was a prohibited pleading under Section 1, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which applies suppletorily to election protests before the RTC. Maruhom filed the instant petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC erred in ruling his motion was prohibited.
ISSUE
Whether a Motion to Dismiss, filed after an Answer, is a prohibited pleading in an election protest pending before the Regional Trial Court.
RULING
Yes, the Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s ruling. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 1, Rule 19, explicitly list a motion to dismiss as a prohibited pleading in election contests, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. This rule applies suppletorily to election protests originally cognizable by courts of general jurisdiction, such as the RTC, pursuant to Rule 35, Section 1 of the same Rules. The prohibition is grounded on the need for expeditious disposition of election cases, which involve public interest and the need to swiftly determine the true will of the electorate.
The Court rejected Maruhom’s argument that the prohibition only applies if filed before an answer. The rule’s clear language contains no such temporal qualification; it broadly prohibits the pleading itself. Allowing such a motion after an answer would contravene the summary nature of election proceedings and permit dilatory tactics. The grounds raised in Maruhom’s motion (e.g., alleged violation of ballot boxes, propriety of a manual recount) pertain to the merits of the protest and are matters of defense best threshed out in a full hearing, not via a motion to dismiss. The COMELEC correctly dismissed the petition for lack of merit.