GR 195191; (March, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195191 ; March 20, 2012
CONGRESSWOMAN LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ, petitioner, vs. EUFROCINO C. CODILLA, JR. AND HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez was proclaimed the winning candidate for the congressional seat of the Fourth District of Leyte after the May 2010 elections. Her husband, Richard Gomez, was initially disqualified by the COMELEC for lacking the residency requirement, and she filed her Certificate of Candidacy as his substitute. Private respondent Eufrocino Codilla, Jr., the defeated candidate, filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Petitioner moved to dismiss the protest, arguing its verification was defective as it was notarized without the protestant’s competent evidence of identity, violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The HRET denied the motion, noting the original protest contained the required verification and merely directed Codilla to have it properly notarized, which he subsequently did.
Petitioner elevated the case via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion by not dismissing the protest due to the defective verification and by allowing the protestant to raise qualification issues in an election protest, which she argued is solely for contesting the election results.
ISSUE
Whether the HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion in: (1) refusing to dismiss the election protest despite an allegedly defective verification; and (2) allowing the protestant to raise qualification issues in an election protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the HRET’s resolutions. On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged defect in the verification—the notary public’s failure to require competent evidence of identity—did not render the verification fatally defective. Verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement intended to secure an assurance that the allegations are true and correct. The HRET correctly allowed the protestant to cure the defect by submitting a properly notarized verification, which he complied with. The Tribunal acted within its discretion to order the correction, not dismissal, as the defect was not substantial enough to nullify the protest.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the HRET has the constitutional authority to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members. This power is plenary and includes the jurisdiction to determine questions of eligibility and qualification, even if these issues are intertwined with an election protest. The protestant’s raising of qualification issues falls squarely within the HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not commit any grave abuse of discretion; it was merely exercising its constitutional mandate. Certiorari does not lie to correct errors of judgment but only jurisdictional errors, which were absent here.