G.R. No. 140158, January 29, 2001
FERNANDO T. BALTAZAR, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. ISAGANI PALAD, Presiding Judge, Branch 53, RTC, Guagua, Pampanga, and CATALINA BAGASINA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernando Baltazar and private respondent Catalina Bagasina were candidates for municipal mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga in the May 1998 elections. Baltazar was proclaimed the winner. Bagasina filed an election protest. Summons was served on Baltazar on July 7, 1998. He subsequently filed his Answer with Counter-Protest by registered mail.
Bagasina moved to expunge the Answer for being filed three days beyond the five-day reglementary period. The trial court granted the motion, ruling it had lost jurisdiction due to the late filing. Baltazar’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, arguing his pleading was filed on July 13, 1998, as shown by a certification from the Philpost Operations Manager, though the envelope was postmarked July 15, 1998.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the trial court’s order to strike out petitioner’s Answer with Counter-Protest for being filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on procedural rules governing the filing of pleadings and the conclusive presumption regarding the date of mailing. Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, an answer and counter-protest must be filed within five days from receipt of the summons. The Court emphasized the established doctrine that the date of mailing is conclusively presumed to be the date shown by the postmark on the envelope, not the date of receipt by the post office or a date stated in a certification.
In this case, the envelope containing Baltazar’s Answer was postmarked July 15, 1998. Since summons was received on July 7, the filing was three days late. The certification from the Philpost Operations Manager could not overcome the conclusive presumption established by the postmark. The Court found no error of law or grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s adherence to this clear rule, which is designed to ensure certainty and prevent disputes over filing dates. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.