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, Santos filed a “Motion to Withdraw Protest on Unrevised Precincts” on September 12, 1988. Before the HRET could act on this withdrawal motion, Santos filed an “Urgent Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest” on September 14, 1988. Robles opposed this recall.

ISSUE

Whether the HRET acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting Santos’ motion to recall his withdrawal and ordering the resumption of the revision of ballots.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the HRET. The legal logic centers on jurisdiction and the nature of electoral protests. The Court clarified that the HRET did not lose jurisdiction over the protest. Santos’ motion to withdraw pertained only to the unrevised precincts and was filed before any HRET action. The withdrawal did not automatically divest the tribunal of jurisdiction; it required a favorable judicial order to become effective. Since the HRET had not yet acted on the withdrawal motion when the recall was filed, it retained full authority to rule on both pleadings. Granting the recall was within its sound discretion. The Court emphasized that election protests are imbued with public interest, aiming to ascertain the true will of the electorate. Technicalities must not hinder this objective. The HRET’s actions were procedural rulings to fully resolve the protest on its merits, not a capricious exercise of power. Furthermore, Robles’ supplemental petition regarding a partial vote recount was deemed academic, as the revision had already been completed. No deprivation of due process was found, as the partial determination was a mere arithmetic tally from the revision proceedings where both parties participated.