Lindo vs. Comelec

CONRADO C. LINDO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, OCTAVIO D. VELASCO AND THE HON. ENRIQUE ALMARIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH XV, TRECE MARTIRES CITY

G.R. No. 95016, February 11, 1991

FACTS:

Petitioner Conrado Lindo and private respondent Octavio D. Velasco were candidates for the position of municipal mayor of Ternate, Cavite, in the January 18, 1988 local elections.  After canvass, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Ternate proclaimed petitioner Lindo as the elected mayor of Ternate on January 19, 1988. However, Velasco filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court, Branch XV, with station at Trece Martires City. After hearing the testimonies of the respective chairmen of the four controverted precincts, the trial court issued an order on November 11, 1988 excluding the ballots from these precincts from the revision.  

Velasco filed a motion for reconsideration of the order which was denied on December 9, 1988. As a result, Velasco filed a Notice of Appeal to the COMELEC on February 17, 1990 alleging that the winner in an election protest case should be determined not only on the basis of the results obtained from the contested precincts but from the results of both the contested and uncontested precincts.  

 On June 6, 1990, after hearing the arguments of the parties and after the parties submitted their respective memoranda, the COMELEC rendered its decision declaring Octavio Velasco as the duly elected mayor of Ternate, Cavite and directed Conrado Lindo to vacate the said Office of Mayor of Ternate, Cavite and to turn over the same to Protestant Octavio D. Velasco.

ISSUE:

 Whether the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of discretion for disregarding its own rules regarding promulgation of a decision in election protest cases.

RULING:

No.  

Promulgation is the process by which a decision is published, officially announced, made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with notice to the parties or their counsel. It is the delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication.  It is the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of court.

The rule referred to in this case is Section 20 of Rule 35 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which provides: "Sec. 20.  Promulgation and Finality of Decision.  - The decision of the court shall be promulgated on a date set by it of which due notice must be given the parties.  It shall become final five (5) days after promulgation.  No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained."

The additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC rules of notice in advance of promulgation is not part of the process of promulgation.  Hence, we do not agree with petitioner's contention that there was no promulgation of the trial court's decision.  The trial court did not deny that it had officially made the decision public.  From the recital of facts of both parties, copies of the decision were sent to petitioner's counsel of record and petitioner himself.  Another copy was sent to private respondent.

 

A procedural lapse or error should be distinguished from lack of jurisdiction.  In the former, the proceedings are null and void if and when the error is shown to have caused harm while in the latter, the proceedings are null and void unconditionally.

Further, this case had been pending with respondent trial court for almost two (2) years where the herein petitioner had all the opportunities to be heard and was in fact heard.  Election protests are supposed to be summary in nature.  That is why the law (Art. 258 of BP 881) and the rules (Sec. 18, Rule 35, Comelec Rules of Procedure) require that every case, election protests shall be decided within six (6) months after its filing.  The proceedings should not be allowed to drag on during the term of the contested position with the result that the elected would be deprived of his right to the office and the defeated would discharge the office which he was not entitled to.