G.R. No. L-28448-49 July 30, 1971
FELIX MEDENILLA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE UNION C. KAYANAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Ninth Judicial District Branch IV, Lucena City, ANACLETO C. ALCALA, AMPARO S. LAVIDES, GODOFREDO TAN, PROCESO DE GALA, DANTE DIAMANTE and AGUINALDO FONTANILLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felix Medenilla filed two petitions for the exclusion of 137 persons from the permanent list of voters in Precincts Nos. 10 and 11 of barrio Villa Reyes, San Narciso, Quezon, on grounds of lack of residence, non-attainment of legal age, and illiteracy. The petitions, docketed as Election Cases Nos. C-03 and C-04, alleged that notice was served on the registration board and the voters concerned, with a sworn proof of notice of hearing. Private respondents, who were candidates in the upcoming local elections, intervened and filed a motion to dismiss. They argued the petitions lacked jurisdictional facts, such as specifying which voter applications were validated before or after September 15, 1967—a critical distinction under Republic Act No. 5178 for determining the filing period for exclusion petitions. They also claimed the petitions failed to attach registry return receipts as proof of notice and did not specify the grounds against each voter.
At the hearing, petitioner’s counsel chose not to file an opposition and submitted the cases for resolution. The respondent Judge granted the motion to dismiss. Furthermore, citing a “rejoinder” from the private respondents which claimed they were constrained to pay P4,000 for legal services to protect the voters’ suffrage and their electoral prospects, the Judge ordered petitioner to reimburse this amount as attorney’s fees and pay the costs. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that the award was made without evidence and that the “adverse party” entitled to reimbursement under the Election Code refers to the challenged voters, not intervening candidates.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the exclusion petitions and in condemning the petitioner to pay attorney’s fees to the intervening candidates.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the petitions. The Court emphasized that election laws are mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioner’s failure to allege specifically whether the challenged registrations were validated on or before September 15, 1967, or thereafter, was a fatal omission. This distinction dictates the applicable filing deadline under Republic Act No. 5178 . Without such an allegation, the petitions did not state a cause of action and the court acquired no jurisdiction. The dismissal was therefore legally sound.
However, the Court modified the order regarding attorney’s fees. It held that the award of P4,000 was excessive and lacked evidentiary basis, as no proof of actual payment or an agreed fee was presented. While the Court affirmed the authority to award attorney’s fees under paragraph (d) of Section 123 of the Revised Election Code when a petition is filed to molest the adverse party, it stressed that such an award must be reasonable and supported by the circumstances. Applying the factors from Umipig vs. Degala, such as the nature of the service and the results secured, the Supreme Court reduced the award to a reasonable sum of P500. Thus, the order was affirmed as modified, with costs against the petitioner.