Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Information | Reference
Case Title:
EVELYN ABEJA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE
FEDERICO TAADA, Regional Trial
Court of Lucena City, Branch 58, and 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ROSAURO RADOVAN (deceased), Abeja vs. Taada
respondents.
Citation: 236 SCRA 60 *
G.R. No. 112283. August 30, 1994.
More...
________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
** Died on June 13, 1992 and is substituted by Vice-Mayor Conrado de Rama and
Ediltrudes Radovan, widow of Rosauro Radovan.
61
litigation.
Same; Same; Same; Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules is it indicated
that presentation of evidence by the protestee may continue after the court
has ruled on the evidence of the protestant and determine the number of
votes obtained by the latter.Furthermore, it is readily apparent from the
provisions of the applicable Comelec Rules that the court shall render its
decision after both parties shall have presented their respective evidence.
Nowhere in the said provisions is it indicated that presentation of
evidence by the protestee may continue after the court has ruled on the
evidence of the protestant and determine the number of votes obtained by
the latter. Otherwise, it would be possible for the protestee to prolong the
protest and render it moot by expiration of the term of office contested.
Same; Same; Same; Laches; The private respondent is guilty of laches
for having unreasonably failed to cause the revision of the counter-
protested precincts despite being afforded ample time to do so.There is
likewise merit to petitioners claim that private respondent is guilty of
laches, which, in a general sense, is a failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of
time, warranting a presumption that a party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it (Republic v. Caballero, 79 SCRA
177 [1977]). In the case at bar, private respondent unreasonably failed to
cause the revision of the counter-protested precincts despite being
afforded ample time to do so and must be deemed to have abandoned it.
Same; Same; Same; Sec. 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allows
execution pending appeal in election cases upon good reasons.Under the
circumstances and for reasons discussed above, the order of Judge Lopez
dated August 18, 1993 which resolved the party litigants objections to the
revised ballots may very well be the subject of a valid decision to resolve
the instant electoral protest based on the revised ballots of the 22
protested precincts. In the event petitioner is declared the winning
candidate, she should, upon proper motion, be allowed to immediately
assume the contested office. We say this because in their pleadings,
petitioner and private respondent have amply discussed their respective
arguments in the applicability of Garcia v. De Jesus and the
accompanying case of Tobon Uy v. Comelec (206 SCRA 779 [1992]) and
the possibility is not remote that private respondent may once again
resort to dilatory tactics. Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allows
62
BIDIN, J.:
In this petition for certiorari, petitioner seeks the annulment of the
orders dated September 21, 1992 and October 18, 1993 issued by
respondent Judge Federico Taada which decreed, among others,
the revision of some 36 precincts contained in the counter-protest
filed by respondent Radovan. The said orders were issued by
respondent judge in resolving petitioner/protestants Motion to
Determine Votes, to Proclaim Winner and to Allow Assumption of
Office dated August 27, 1993.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Evelyn Abeja and private respondent Rosauro
Radovan (deceased) were contenders for the office of municipal
mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, in the May 11, 1992, national elections.
Based on the official returns of the Municipal Board of
Canvassers for the said municipality, private respondent was
63
64
In an order dated April 15, 1993, Presiding Judge Lopez ruled that
(p)rotestants offer of evidence as well as the protestees objections
thereto are now submitted for the Courts resolution (Rollo, p. 61).
On June 13, 1993, private respondent Rosauro Radovan died.
He was substituted by Vice-Mayor Conrado de Rama and,
surprisingly, by his surviving spouse, Ediltrudes Radovan.
On July 13, 1993, private respondents de Rama and Radovan
filed a Manifestation seeking a prompt resolution of all pending
incidents.
On August 12, 1993, the trial court issued an order stating that
(c)ounsels for both parties having signified to this Court that they
are submitting the motion to resolve without further argument.
This motion being a motion to resolve, the Court hereby informs
the parties that pending matters submitted for resolution will be
duly resolved on or before August 20, 1993 (Rollo, p. 143).
Shortly thereafter, Judge Lopez was reassigned to the Regional
Trial Court of Kalookan City. Before transferring to his new post,
however, Judge Lopez issued an order dated August 18, 1993
which contained his ruling in each of the contested ballots in the
22 contested precincts and the reasons therefor. In the said order,
Judge Lopez emphasized that in ruling on the various objections
lodged by both parties during the revision proceedings, the
originals of the contested ballots in the ballot boxes were subjected
to careful scrutiny in the seclusion of the Courts chamber (Rollo,
p. 161). Nonetheless, the ruling did not contain a summation of the
exact number of votes to be credited to each of the parties, or a
declaration of the winner in the election protest for that matter.
On August 27, 1993, petitioner filed a Motion to Determine
Votes, To Proclaim Winner and to Allow Assumption of Office
considering that based on her own computation of revised ballots
ruled upon by Judge Lopez, she led private respondent by a
margin of 281 votes.
Private respondents filed a Motion to Correct the order dated
August 18, 1993, issued by Judge Lopez as well as oppositions to
the motion of petitioner. Respondents claim that petitioners
Motion to Proclaim Winner is premature since the 36 counter-
protested precincts are yet to be revised.
65
_________________
hundred pesos (P300.00) for every ballot box for the compensation of
revisors at the rate of P100.00 each.
69
(c) Failure to make the cash deposits herein provided within the
prescribed time limit shall result in the automatic dismissal of the
protest, counter-protest or protest-in-intervention, as the case may be.
o0o
72