G.R. No. 194143 ; October 4, 2011
SALVADOR D. VIOLAGO, SR., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOAN V. ALARILLA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Salvador D. Violago, Sr. and private respondent Joan V. Alarilla were candidates for mayor in Meycauayan City, Bulacan, during the May 10, 2010 elections. Alarilla was proclaimed the winner. On May 21, 2010, Violago filed an election protest with the COMELEC, alleging massive vote-buying, intimidation, fraud, non-appreciation of valid votes by PCOS machines, and election irregularities. The COMELEC 2nd Division issued an Order on July 16, 2010, setting a preliminary conference for August 12, 2010, and directing the parties to file their Preliminary Conference Briefs at least one day before the conference. Alarilla filed her Brief on August 11, 2010. Violago filed his Brief on the day of the conference, August 12, 2010, and also filed an Urgent Motion to Reset, claiming he only learned of the conference a day prior and that his counsel had conflicting schedules. Neither Violago nor his counsel appeared at the conference. On August 12, 2010, the COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the election protest due to Violago’s belated filing of his Brief. Violago filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc on August 19, 2010. The COMELEC en banc denied the motion on September 21, 2010, citing Violago’s failure to file a verified motion as required by the COMELEC Rules. Violago then filed the present petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC 2nd Division and the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the election protest and denying the motion for reconsideration, respectively, on technical grounds.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
1. On the Dismissal by the COMELEC 2nd Division: The Court found the dismissal for late filing of the Preliminary Conference Brief to be a grave abuse of discretion. Violago presented a Certification from the Postmaster of Meycauayan City showing that the notice of the August 12 conference was received only on August 16, 2010, and an advisory that the local telegraph office (another potential means of notice) had been closed since April 2009. The COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed the case without first verifying these claims, even though its own Electoral Contests Adjudication Department had requested a certification from the postmaster the day after the dismissal. The Court held that a one-day delay in filing, under these justifiable circumstances and with no intent to violate the rules, did not warrant outright dismissal. Technicalities should not defeat the resolution of an election protest on the merits, which involves public interest in ascertaining the true will of the electorate.
2. On the Denial by the COMELEC en banc: The Court held that while Section 3, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure requires a motion for reconsideration to be verified, this rule is subject to liberal construction. Citing precedents (Quintos v. COMELEC, Panlilio v. COMELEC, Pacanan v. COMELEC), the Court reiterated that the COMELEC Rules should be liberally construed to serve the ends of justice and ensure the speedy disposition of election cases. The lack of verification is a mere technicality that should not prevail over the paramount need to resolve the real choice of the people. The COMELEC en banc’s rigid application of the rule constituted grave abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court set aside the assailed COMELEC Orders and remanded the election protest (EPC No. 2010-23) to the COMELEC for further proceedings.