GR 86647; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86647 February 5, 1990
REP. VIRGILIO P. ROBLES, petitioner, vs. HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ROMEO L. SANTOS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Virgilio Robles and private respondent Romeo Santos were candidates for Congressman of Caloocan City’s 1st district in the May 11, 1987 elections. Robles was proclaimed winner. Santos filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) on January 5, 1988, alleging fraud and irregularities and praying for a recount in 320 precincts. Revision of ballots for the initial 25% of contested precincts concluded on September 7, 1988. Subsequently, Robles filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Revision on September 8, 1988. On September 12, 1988, Santos filed a Motion to Withdraw Protest on the unrevised precincts. Before the HRET could act on these motions, Santos filed an Urgent Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest on September 14, 1988. Robles opposed this recall motion.
ISSUE
Whether the HRET acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting Santos’ motion to recall his withdrawal of protest and ordering the resumption of revision.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the HRET. The Court clarified that the HRET did not lose jurisdiction over the election protest. Santos’ Motion to Withdraw Protest on September 12, 1988, was not immediately acted upon by the Tribunal. The HRET only resolved it on September 19, 1988, alongside other pending motions. In its resolution, the HRET noted the motions to suspend revision and to withdraw, and granted the motion to recall the withdrawal. Since the withdrawal had not been granted prior to its recall, the HRET retained jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that an election protest is imbued with public interest, and technicalities should not hinder the Tribunal’s constitutional duty to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The right to public office is rooted in electoral mandate, and the HRET must be allowed to perform its functions fully. Petitioner’s reliance on Dimaporo v. Estipona was misplaced, as in that case the withdrawal had already been favorably acted upon before being questioned. The supplemental petition regarding the partial determination of votes after the initial revision was deemed academic, as the full revision had been completed, and no deprivation of due process was found in the procedural steps taken.