GR 56174; (May, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56174 May 15, 1981
TEODORO S. MAYUGA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE as Presiding Judge of the CFI of Batangas, Lemery Branch, Lemery Batangas, and GERMAN M. TENORIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Teodoro S. Mayuga was proclaimed mayor of San Nicolas, Batangas, following the January 30, 1980 elections. On February 8, 1980, private respondent German M. Tenorio, the losing candidate, filed an election protest. On March 4, 1980, Tenorio amended his protest to include three additional voting centers. Mayuga filed his answer on March 10, 1980, asserting the amended petition was filed out of time and objecting to the revision of ballots from the three new centers.
The respondent judge gave due course to the amended protest. Mayuga then filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to nullify the judge’s order, but the COMELEC dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction over certiorari petitions involving cases pending in the Courts of First Instance. The respondent judge subsequently issued an order to proceed with the revision of the ballots from the contested centers, prompting this direct petition.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended election protest that included additional voting centers beyond the statutory period for filing the original protest.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court upheld the respondent judge’s order, ruling there was no grave abuse of discretion. The legal landscape was modified by COMELEC Resolution No. 1451, promulgated on February 26, 1980, pursuant to its constitutional rule-making authority. Section 5, Rule II of this Resolution provides that substantial amendments to pleadings affecting the merits are permissible after a case is set for hearing only by leave of court, based on public interest and absent intent to delay. However, amendments in matters of form may be permitted at any stage.
The Court emphasized that the amended petition was filed on March 4, 1980, before Mayuga filed his answer on March 10, 1980. Consequently, the case had not yet been set for hearing when the amendment was made. Furthermore, Mayuga’s specific denial of the allegations concerning the new voting centers in his answer demonstrated he was not caught by surprise or placed at a disadvantage. The amendment served public interest by allowing a full examination of the electoral will and was not intended for delay. Thus, under the new COMELEC rules, which liberalize the amendment of pleadings in election cases, the respondent judge correctly admitted the amended protest.