SandovalVSElectoralTribunal

8/4/2019 SandovalVSElectoralTribunal

1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

ManilaEN BANC

G.R. No. 190067 : March 9, 2010REPRESENTATIVE ALVIN S. SANDOVAL (Lone District of

Navotas-Malabon),Petitioner,

vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JOSEPHINE VERONIQUE R. LACSON-

NOEL, and HON. SPEAKER PROSPERO NOGRALES,Respondents.D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:This resolves the Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt, praying that the Decision1cacalw of the House of RepresentativesElectoral Tribunal (HRET) dated September 24, 2009 and itsResolution2cacalw dated November 12, 2009 be declared null and void abinitio.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryThe accurate narration of facts in the HRET Decision is not disputed bythe parties. Pertinent portions thereof are reproduced hereunder:On 19 May 2007, after the canvass of votes, as evidenced bythe Certificate ofCanvass of Votes and Proclamation of the WinningCandidates for the Member of the House ofRepresentatives, the Boardof Canvassers of the Legislative District of Malabon City-Navotasproclaimed protestee Sandoval [herein petitioner] the winningcandidate for the Office of the Member of the House of Representativeswith Seventy-one Thousand Four Hundred Ninety (71,490) votesas against protestant Lacson-Noel who obtained the second highestnumber of votes with Seventy Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-

One (70,331) votes; or a winning margin ofOne Thousand OneHundred Fifty-Nine (1,159) votes. Per the Summary Statement ofVotes, the distribution of all votes legally cast in the district is asfollows:

SANDOVAL, Alvin S. - 71,490

LACSON-NOEL, Josephine Veronique R. - 70,331

FRANCISCO, Maritoni Z. - 35,634

CINCO, Roberto T. - 412

Refusing to concede defeat,

protestant Lacson-Noel filed theinstant Petition of Proteston 29 May 2007, and alleged in substancethat "the results [of the election] do not reflect the true will of thevoters as they are but products of various fraudulent and illegal acts,schemes and machinations employed by [protestee] Sandoval, hisagents and supporters, with the connivance or conspiracy of the Boardof Election Inspectors (BEIs), which defrauded and deprived [her] oflawful votes cast at the precinct level." Specifically, protestant Lacson-Noel assails the results of election in 623 precincts (441 fromMalabon City and 182 from Navotas) out of the 1,437 total numberof precincts in the Lone Legislative District of Malabon City-Navotas onthe following grounds:

a. Misreading, miscounting and/or miscrediting of votes [in favorof protestee Sandoval and/or ballots intended for protestantLacson-Noel were not counted in her favor] x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryb. Misappreciation of ballots in violation of Section 211 of theOmnibus Election Code and case law [such as the non-countingof protestant Lacson-Noel's maiden surname "Lacson" in herfavor] x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary


2/9

c. x x x written-by-One ballots, in pairs or in groups of ballots[were counted in favor of protestee].chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryd. The use of either fake, spurious ballots or genuine butmanufactured ballots to increase protestee Sandoval's votes. x xx. chanroblesvirtua|awlibarye. The use of manufactured election returns which are prepared

x x x prior to the start of voting and/or counting.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

f. Manipulation, alteration and falsification of the votes andrelated data in the election returns and/or vote padding in favorof protestee Sandoval and vote-shaving from protestant Lacson-Noel's votes.

Protestant Lacson-Noel claims that she would have obtained a greaternumber of votes if not for the fraud and irregularities that marred theelection. She posits that "[t]here is a need for a recount, revision anddue appreciation of the ballots and examination or scrutiny of electiondocuments in the [623] protested precincts," as the result thereof "willaffect the presumptive results of the congressional elections in theMalabon City-Navotas Legislative District in a very substantial degreeas to overcome protestee Sandoval's presumptive lead." Consequently,protestant Lacson-Noel prays that, after the revision and appreciationof ballots and due hearing, judgment be rendered annulling theproclamation of protestee Sandoval; and declaring her the duly electedRepresentative of the Lone Legislative District of Malabon City-Navotas. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 25 June 2007, protestee Sandoval filed his Answer (with counter-protest, motion for preliminary hearing on Affirmative Defenses andcounter claim) wherein he specifically denied the material allegations

of the protest regarding the number of contested precincts,

groundsfor protest, commission of frauds and irregularities, and the necessityof recount and revision, for being self-serving and unsupported byevidence. By way ofSpecial and Affirmative Defenses, protesteeSandoval contends that it is protestant Lacson-Noel who is guilty ofviolating "election laws, rules and regulations x x x [committed tobenefit her], and which, on the other hand, resulted to (sic) the loss oflegal and valid votes in [his] favor." He narrates that during the crucialhours of voting, counting, recording of the votes cast and transmittalof the records of the votes cast, most of his poll watchers were unable

to effectively keep an eye on the proceedings and secure his votesbecause the latter were supposedly prevented from entering theNavotas polling precincts unlike protestant Lacson-Noel's poll watcherswho were readily accommodated. As a result of the illegal schemesand machinations employed by protestant Lacson-Noel and hersupporters, protestee Sandoval maintains that protestant Lacson-Noel"was able to garner a substantial number of illegal and undeservedvotes from the Municipality of Navotas." With respect to Malabon City,protestee Sandoval similarly claims that "massive fraud and illegalelectoral practices were committed" all through the election processwhich tarnished the results of several identified precincts in Malabon

City.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryBy way of counter-protest, protestee Sandoval questions the results ofthe voting in 1,006 precincts (393 from Malabon City and 613from Navotas) in Malabon City-Navotas on the allegation that,thereat, he was deprived of votes cast in his favor and whereprotestant Lacson-Noel was illegitimately benefited with votes meantfor him. The bases for protestee Sandoval's counter-protest are: (1)the loss of legal votes in his favor; (2) the counting of illegal, markedand stray votes for him in favor of protestant Lacson-Noel; (3) the useof manufactured or falsified election returns to favor protestant


3/9

Lacson-Noel; (4) the padding of election returns to increase the votesof protestant Lacson-Noel and to reduce his (protestee Sandoval's)votes; and (5) the commission of electoral fraud and irregularities byprotestant Lacson-Noel and supporters in connivance with the Board ofElection Inspectors (BEI). chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 29 June 2007, protestee Sandoval filed an Ex Parte Motion to

WithdrawCounterclaim (for damages representing his attorney's feesand litigation expenses). This was granted by the Tribunal in itsResolution No. 07-074 dated 12 July 2007. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 31 July 2007, after the issues were joined, the Tribunal ordered theCity/Municipal Treasurers and Election Officers of Malabon City andNavotas to release to the duly authorized representatives of theTribunal the following: (1) protested and counter-protested ballotboxes with their keys; (2) the lists of voters with voting records; (3)books of voters; and (4) other election documents and paraphernaliapertaining to the protested and counter-protested precincts.The Tribunal set the preliminary conference of the instant electionprotest case on 23 August 2007.On 6 September 2007, the Tribunal issued the Preliminary ConferenceOrder x x x.x x x xAnd as agreed to by the parties, the issues for resolution are (1)whether or not the recount, revision, and re-appreciation of ballots,including election documents, from the protested and counter-protested precincts will affect the results of the election in the LoneDistrict of Malabon City-Navotas; and (2) whether or not protestantLacson-Noel and protestee Sandoval each committed electoral frauds

and irregularities to cause the nullification of the votes counted in theirfavor. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 2 October 2007, the employees of the Tribunal were able to collectthe ballot boxes and election documents and paraphernalias of822protested and counter-protested precincts from the CityTreasurer of Malabon City. On 11 December 2008, the ballot boxesfrom 613 protested and counter-protested precincts in Navotaswere collected from the custody of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 170 of Malabon City-Navotas, as the same had been previouslytransferred thereto in connection with an election protest concerning

the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Navotas.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

On 21 February 2008, the Tribunal ordered the revision of ballots fromthe protested and counter-protested precincts after finally collectingand taking custody of the concerned ballot boxes. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 4 March 2008, both parties filed their respective motions tophotocopy their objected and claimed ballots, as well as the Minutes ofVoting. x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 11 March 2008, the revision of ballots from the 1,434 protestedand/or counter-protested precinctscommenced and continueduntil terminated on 21 April 2008. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryIn the interregnum, however, protestee Sandoval moved to photocopy

the frontand dorsalportions of all ballots subject of the revision "forpurposes of authentication and verification, x x x to check thesignatures [of the BEI] appearing at the back of the ballots." Healleged that, "upon examination, of the ballots obtained from theprotested precincts (sic) the ballot boxes of which have so far beenopened, strong indications exist that the ballots retrieved are notgenuine." In an Orderdated 24 March 2008, the Tribunal partiallygranted protestee Sandoval's prayer, to wit:WHEREFORE, protestee Sandoval's Motion for the Photocopying ofBoth the Front and DorsalSides of Ballots is partially GRANTED insofar


4/9

as the ballots that are not yet revised and photocopied are concerned.With respect to the ballots that were already revised and photocopied,protestee is DIRECTED to specify within five (5) days from receipt ofthe Order, the ballots containing questionable signatures of the BEIchairpersons, as recorded in the revision reports that should bephotocopied on the dorsal sides.

x x x xOn 21 April 2008, upon conclusion of the revision of ballots, thephysical count thereof yielded the following results: 70,530 ballotswere counted for protestant Lacson-Noel, while 69,939 votes cast werefor protestee Sandoval. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 12 May 2008, or twenty-one (21) days after the termination of therevision of ballots, protestee Sandoval filed a Motion for TechnicalExamination of "ballots and election documents obtained from theballot boxes from no less than twenty-eight (28) precincts in the Cityof Malabon" where manifest irregularities were noticed. ProtesteeSandoval basically contends that the ballot boxes from the identifiedtwenty-eight (28) precincts: (1) are missing padlocks and/orinner/outer metal seals; and (2) contain fake or spurious ballots. Hereports that the examination of the contents of said ballot boxesrevealed that there are substantial discrepancies between the numberof votes cast and counted as against the number of ballots physicallycounted during revision. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 22 May 2008, the Tribunal issued Resolution No. 08-174 noting theprotestee Sandoval's aforestatedMotion for TechnicalExamination. Inthe same resolution, the Tribunal directed protestant Lacson-Noel tocomment thereon within five (5) days from notice. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

In the meantime,

on 27 May 2008,

protestant Lacson-Noel startedpresenting and marking her evidence before the designated hearingcommissioner, Atty. Michael D. Villaret. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 10 June 2008, protestant Lacson-Noel filed her opposition toprotestee Sandoval's prayer for technical examination of specificballots. She contends that the Tribunal is competent to determine thevalidity of contested ballots, including fake or spurious ones; and thatit had already developed an expertise in verifying the claims of allegedtampering of ballots and in identifying valid from invalid ballots. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 20 June 2008, in Resolution No. 08-216, the Tribunal denied

protestee Sandoval's Motion for TechnicalEx

amination of ballots intwenty-eight (28) precincts on the ground that:When the matters which the parties seek to be examined are thosewhich are well within the judicial determination of the Tribunal withoutresorting to technical examination, the Tribunal itself, in the course ofthe appreciation of ballots and other election documents involved, candetermine whether paid or groups of ballots are written by one or twopersons.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryThe Tribunal further noted that Hon. Resureccion Z. Borra, then ActingChairman of the COMELEC, already testified on the various securityfeatures of an official ballot used during the 14 May 2007 synchronized

National and Local Elections. Hence, resort to technical examination isno longer necessary to determine the authenticity of ballots. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 23 June 2008, protestant Lacson-Noel formally offered thefollowing documentary evidence:x x x xOn 8 July 2008, protestee Sandoval filed his Comment/Opposition toprotestant Lacson-Noel's formal offer of evidence.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 24 July 2008, in Resolution No. 08-244, the Tribunal admitted alldocumentary exhibits formally offered by protestant Lacson-Noel x xx. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary


5/9

On 14 August 2008, the hearing for the presentation of protesteeSandoval's evidence was set on 2, 15, 18, 23 and 25 September2008.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 2 September 2008, protestee Sandoval presented forauthentication photocopies of three hundred elevenRevision Reports xx x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

On 15 September 2008,

protestee Sandoval presented forauthentication photocopies of additional Revision Reports x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryAgain, on 18 September 2008, protestee Sandoval presentedphotocopies of more Revision Reports for authentication x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryThe scheduled hearing on 23 September 2008 was canceled upon themotion of protestee Sandoval.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryDuring the hearing conducted on 25 September 2008, protesteeSandoval presented photocopies of various election documents x xx. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 29 September 2008, the Hearing Commissioner of the instant caseset additional hearing dates for the reception of protestee Sandoval'sevidence 2, 13, 27, 28, 29 and 31 October 2008 and on 3 November2008.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryFrom the record of the case, though, except for the hearing scheduledon 3 November 2008, it appears that no hearings were held on thedates aforestated in view of the unavailability of the counsel ofprotestee Sandoval. Particularly, protestee Sandoval asked that thehearing scheduled on 27 and 28 October 2008 be cancelled because ofan "apparent conflict in the schedule" of his witnesses (party-revisors)in view of the supposed appearance before the Senate ElectoralTribunal (SET) relative to another case. Again, on 29 October 2008, in

a written motion,Manifestation and Urgent Motion, protestee Sandovalprayed that the cancellation of the day's hearing for the reason thatthe same witnesses still remained "unavailable due to an equallyurgent engagement as the party-revisors in the electoral protest casein the SET involving Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri. The motion to resetthe hearing was denied by the Hearing Officer, who, instead, ruled thatthe same shall continue on the next scheduled hearing date on 3November 2008.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryWorth noting at this point is the fact that on the hearing of 29 October2008, in response to the aforesaid motion, counsel for protestant

Lacson-Noel manifested that being one of the counsels of record of theonly case before the SET, she knew for a fact that no hearings werescheduled on 27 and 28 October 2008. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 3 and 11 November 2008, the hearings resumed and protesteeSandoval was able to present fourteen (14) party revisors x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn the last scheduled hearing, or on 11 November 2008, protesteefiled another motion Motion for Leave (to Present AdditionalWitnesses) with Request forSubpoena. Protestee Sandoval wanted topresent expert witnesses x x x. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn 12 November 2008, protestant Lacson-Noel opposed the precedingmotion on the ground that the same was merely another dilatory move

to delay the resolution of the instant election protest case. She arguedthat per HRET Rules, protestee Sandoval had already used up the timeallocated him and that he "squandered the time given him to presenthis evidence" by presenting party revisors as witnesses whose opinionson the authenticity of the subject ballots allegedly bear no evidentiaryweight. Further, she contended that (1) the period of two months tobe reckoned from 2 September 2008 within which the presentation ofprotestee Sandoval's evidence must be concluded, including the filingof his [Formal Offer ofEvidence], had already expired on 3 November2008; (2) four of the 13 hearing dates set by the Hearing


6/9

Commissioner were cancelled upon the instance of protesteeSandoval; and (3) the presentation of additional evidence beyond 3November 2008 is in direct contravention of Rule 59 of the 2004 HRETRule of Procedure providing for a period of only two months, frominception, to conclude the presentation of a party's evidence.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryDespite the opposition, in Resolution No. 08-342 issued on 24

November 2008,

the Tribunal resolved to grant protestee Sandoval'smotion with the necessary warning that no further extensionshall be given. Accordingly, an additional period of ten (10) days wasset within which to present his additional evidence. In granting theprayer for additional time, the Tribunal took into consideration theprovision of the HRET Rules where, in the interest of justice andmeritorious grounds, it may grant an extension of ten (10) days for aparty to present his evidence. The Tribunal further directed theHearing Commissioner assigned to the present case to set successivedates, not to exceed ten (10) days, for the presentation of protesteeSandoval's additional evidence and to issue the correspondingsubpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to the witnessesconcerned.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryIn compliance to the foregoing, on 25 November 2008, the HearingCommissioner notified the parties herein that further hearings will beconducted on 10 and 11 December 2008.x x x xOn 18 December 2008, despite the warning issued by the Tribunal that"no further extensions will be given," protestee Sandoval once moreprayed for leave to present an additional expert witness. x x xAs expected, protestant Lacson-Noel opposed the above; and asked

the Tribunal to deny the same x x x..chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

On 22 January 2009, in Resolution No. 09-009, the Tribunal deniedprotestee Sandoval's motion for suspension of the period to file formaloffer of evidence, and considered him to have waived the completionof the presentation of his evidence, to wit:WHEREFORE, the Tribunal (1) DENIES protestee's Manifestation andMotion [With Prayer forSuspension of the Period to File Protestee'sFormal Offer ofEvidence]; (2) CONSIDERS protestee to have waivedthe completion of the presentation of his evidence; and (3) DIRECTSprotestant and protestee to submit their respective Memoranda within

ten (10) days from notice.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

x x x xProtestant Lacson-Noel and protestee Sandoval filed their respectiveMemoranda on 11 and 16 February 2009, respectively. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryOn the same day he filed his Memorandum, or on 16 February 2009,protestee Sandoval also filed aManifestation and Motion for PartialReconsideration. Essentially, he moved that he "be allowed to formallyoffer his documentary pieces of evidence" based on the argument that"to prevent [him] from formally offering his documentary pieces ofpt'>x x x x

On 13 March 2009, the Tribunal issued Resolution No. 09-046 dated26 February 2009, the dispositive of which reads:WHEREFORE, the Tribunal DENIES protestee's Manifestation andMotion for PartialReconsideration. (Italics supplied.)3cacalwThereafter, on September 24, 2009, the HRET issued the assailedDecision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Tribunal hereby DECLARESthat protestant Josephine Veronique Lacson-Noel is the duly electedRepresentative of the Lone District of Malabon City-Navotas in theelection held on 14 May 2007, with a winning margin ofFive Hundred


7/9

Forty-Two (542) votes, with the right to assume the duties of heroffice. Consequently, protestee Alvin Sandoval is hereby declaredunseated. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryAs soon as this Decision becomes final, let notices be sent to thePresident of the Philippines, the House of Representatives through theSpeaker, and the Commission on Audit through its Chairman.

SO ORDERED.4

cacalw

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied perResolution dated November 12, 2009.chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryHence, this petition alleging that the HRET committed grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by not admittingpetitioner's formal offer of evidence, thereby denying him due process.

The petition lacks merit. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryIt is hornbook principle that this Court's jurisdiction to review decisionsand orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon a showing ofgrave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal. Absent suchgrave abuse of discretion, this Court shall not interfere with theelectoral tribunals exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction.5cacalw Graveabuse of discretion has been defined in Villarosa v. House ofRepresentatives Electoral Tribunal6cacalw as follows:Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsicalexercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or, inother words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrarymanner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be sopatent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to avirtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all incontemplation of law.7cacalw

Petitioner mainly assails the Tribunal's denial of his pleas for anadditional period of time within which to make his formal offer ofevidence. However, a review of the proceedings will reveal that theHRET acted in accordance with its rules of procedure and well within itsjurisdiction. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryPetitioner commenced presentation of his evidence on September 2,2008. Further hearings were scheduled for September 15, 18, 23 and25, 2008. He was able to present evidence on September 15, 18, and25, 2008, but the hearing set for September 23, 2008 was canceledupon motion of petitioner. On September 29, 2008, the Hearing

Commissioner set additional hearings for October 2,

13,

27,

28,

29and 31, 2008 and November 3, 2008, for reception of petitioner'sevidence. However, due to unavailability of petitioner's counsel,nohearings were held on the dates set for the whole month ofOctober. Hearings only resumed on November 3 and 11, 2008 and,on the latter date, petitioner moved that he be allowed more time topresent additional witnesses. Despite opposition from respondentLacson-Noel, the Tribunal issued Resolution No. 08-342 datedNovember 24, 2008,granting petitioner an additional period often (10) days within which to present evidence, with thewarning that no further extension shall be given. The Hearing

Commissioner notified the parties that further hearings will be held onDecember 10 and 11, 2008. Said hearing dates were utilized bypetitioner. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryNevertheless, in utter disregard of the Tribunal's warning, petitioneragain filed on December 18, 2008 a Manifestation and Motion (withPrayer for Suspension of the Period to File Protestee's Formal Offer ofEvidence), praying for more time to present more witnesses, and thathe be allowed to file his Formal Offer of Evidence upon completion ofpresentation of his evidence. Respondent Lacson-Noel opposed saidmotion, pointing out that the additional period of ten (10) days


8/9

granted to petitioner lapsed on December 24, 2008. Thus, on January22, 2009, the Tribunal issued Resolution No. 09-009, pointing outthat despite the additional period of ten days granted to himand the lapse of more than three (3) months reckoned fromSeptember 2, 2008, petitioner had not completed the presentation ofhis evidence. Since the last day of the extension granted to him was

on December 23,

2008 and said period lapsed without petitionercompleting presentation of his evidence including formal offer thereof,he was deemed to have waived the same. chanroblesvirtua|awlibarySuch action of the HRET was not a denial of petitioner's right to dueprocess. In Villarosa,8cacalw it was held, thus:The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heardand submit evidence in support of ones defense. To be heard doesnot mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard alsothrough pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, eitherthrough oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no

denial of due process.9cacalwIt is quite clear from the foregoing narration of how the proceedingswere conducted that petitioner was given all the opportunity to beheard. So many hearing dates were set for his presentation ofevidence, but he merely wasted a good number of those days. He wasgranted an extension of time so he could file his formal offer ofevidence, but he still failed to fulfill his responsibility. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryNote that the 2004 Rules of the House of Representatives ElectoralTribunal provide for a definite period of time within which a partyshould complete or terminate his presentation of evidence, to wit:Rule 59. Time Limit for Presentation of Evidence. - Each party is given

a period of twenty (20) working days,

preferably successive,

tocomplete the presentation of his evidence, including the formal offerthereof. Unless provided otherwise, this period is terminated withintwo (2) months, which shall begin to run from the first date set for thepresentation of the party's evidence, either before the Tribunal orbefore a Hearing Commissioner. Once commenced, presentation of theevidence-in-chief shall continue every working day until completed oruntil the period granted for such purpose is exhausted. Upon motionbased on meritorious grounds, the Tribunal may grant a ten-dayextension of the period herein fixed.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

The hearing for any particular day or days may be postponed orcancelled upon the request of the party presenting evidence, provided,however, that the delay caused by such postponement or cancellationshall be charged to said party's period for presenting evidence. chanroblesvirtua|awlibaryx x x xThe rule cannot be any clearer that parties are mandated to completethe presentation of their evidence within a period of two (2) months,which shall begin to run from the first date set for the presentation ofthe party's evidence. In this case, petitioner's presentation of evidenceshould have been terminated by November 2, 2008. It was petitioner'sand/or his counsel's duty to always have the foregoing rule or time

limit in mind in planning and scheduling the presentation of histestimonial and documentary evidence. Petitioner had actually beenaccorded leniency because on November 24, 2008, which was alreadybeyond the two-month time limit under Rule 59, the Tribunal issuedResolution No. 08-342 granting him an additional ten days forpresentation of evidence including a formal offer thereof. Petitionerhad been sufficiently warned that that would be the last extension, buthe chose not to heed such warning and failed to use the additionaltime wisely. Only petitioner deserves to be blamed for the woes thatbefell him.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary


9/9

In Hofer v. House ofRepresentatives Electoral Tribunal,10cacalw a case thatis closely analogous to the instant petition, the Court emphasizedthat "[p]rocedural rules in election cases are designed to achieve notonly a correct but also an expeditious determination of the popular willof the electorate."11cacalw Thus, the time limit set by the rules is notsomething to be taken lightly, for it was stressed in the same case that

"the observance of the HRET Rules in conjunction with our own Rulesof Court, must be taken seriously."12cacalw Quoting Baltazar v. CommissionofElections,13cacalw The Court reiterated in Hofer14cacalw that:By their very nature and given the public interest involved in thedetermination of the results of an election, the controversiesarising from the canvass must be resolved speedily, otherwisethe will of the electorate would be frustrated. And the delaybrought about by the tactics resorted to by petitioner is precisely thevery evil sought to be prevented by election statutes and controllingcase law on the matter.15cacalwFrom the foregoing, it is quite clear that the Tribunal acted in the bestinterest of the electorate, ensuring the determination of the latters willwithin a reasonable time. In sum, there is absolutely nothing in thiscase that would justify a finding that the HRET gravely abused itsdiscretion by not granting petitioner an extension of time to presentadditional evidence and formally offer the same.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED.SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO*

Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA*

Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA*

Associate JusticeTERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMINAssociate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABADAssociate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZAssociate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZAAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O NPursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is herebycertified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reachedin consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of theopinion of the Court.

REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice

Documents

SandovalVSElectoralTribunal