F.

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS AND COMMISSION ON APOOINTMENTS Disregard Withdrawal of Protest" did not amount to allowing the refiling of
1. Composition protest beyond the reglementary period.

REP. VIRGILIO P. ROBLES vs. HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, its orders upon all
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (HRET) and ROMEO L. questions pertaining to the cause are orders within its jurisdiction, and
G.R. No. 86647 February 5, 1990 however erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
In the absence of any clear showing of abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent tribunal in promulgating the assailed resolutions, a writ of
FACTS: Petitioner Virgilio Robles and private respondent Romeo Santos certiorari will not issue.
were candidates for the position of Congressman of the 1st district of
Caloocan City. Petitioner Robles was proclaimed the winner. Santos filed Further, petitioner's objections to the resolutions issued by respondent
then an election protest with respondent HRET. He alleged, among others, tribunal center mainly on procedural technicalities, i.e., that the motion to
that the elections were characterized by the commission of electoral frauds withdraw, in effect, divested the HRET of jurisdiction over the electoral
and irregularities in various forms, on the day of elections, during the protest. This argument aside from being irrelevant and baseless, overlooks
counting of votes and during the canvassing of the election returns. He the essence of a public office as a public trust. The right to hold an elective
likewise prayed for the recounting of the genuine ballots in all the 320 office is rooted on electoral mandate, not perceived entitlement to the office.
contested precincts This is the reason why an electoral tribunal has been set up in order that any
doubt as to right/mandate to a public office may be fully resolved vis-a-vis
HRET issued an order setting the commencement of the revision of the popular/public will. To this end, it is important that the tribunal be allowed
contested ballots and directed protestant Santos to identify 25% of the total to perform its functions as a constitutional body, unhampered by
contested precincts which he desires to be revised first in accordance with technicalities or procedural play of words.
Section 18 of the Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
It would not be amiss to state at this point that "an election protest is
Robles filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Revision while Santos filed a impressed with public interest in the sense that the public is interested in
Motion to Withdraw Protest on the unrevised precincts. knowing what happened in the elections" (Dimaporo v. Estipona, supra.), for
this reason, private interests must yield to what is for the common good.
No action on on both motions yet taken by respondent Hence, Santos filed
an Urgent Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest. On Robles ACCORDINGLY, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
opposed Santos' motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest in an respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in issuing the
Urgent Motion to Cancel Continuation of Revision with Opposition to Motion assailed resolutions, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
to Recall Withdrawal.

HRET issued a resolution which, among others, granted Santos' urgent

Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest.

Upon the filing of Protestant's Motion to Withdraw Protest, the revision of

ballots was stopped and such revision remains suspended until now. In view
of such suspension, there is no need to act on Protestee's Motion.

The "Motion to Withdraw Protest," has been withdrawn by Protestant's later

motion, and therefore need not be acted upon.

The Secretary of the Tribunal is directed to schedule the resumption of the

revision oand to send out the necessary notices for this purpose

Robles filed an Urgent Motion and Manifestation praying that his Urgent
Motion to Cancel Revision with Opposition to Motion to Recall be treated as
a Motion for Reconsideration of the HRET resolution .

Respondent HRET directed Santos to comment on Robles' "Urgent Motion

to Cancel Continuation of Revision with Opposition to Motion to Recall
Withdrawal" and ordered the suspension of the resumption of revision.

On January 26,1989, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

denied Robles' Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:
Whether HRET acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
thus giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the subject matter

HELD. No. It is noted that upon Santos' filing of his Motion to Withdraw
Protest on Unrevised Precincts, no action thereon was taken by respondent
HRET Contrary to petitioner's claim that the motion to withdraw was
favorably acted upon.

The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining

uncontested precincts, without any action on the part of respondent
tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the
case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the
parties but continues until the case is terminated (Jimenez v. Nazareno,
G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 1).

We agree with respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

when it held:

We hold therefore that this Tribunal retains the power and the authority to
grant or deny Protestant's Motion to Withdraw, if only to insure that the
Tribunal retains sufficient authority to see to it that the will of the electorate is
ascertained.

Since Protestant's "Motion to Withdraw Protest on the Unrevised Precincts"

had not been acted upon by this Tribunal before it was recalled by the
Protestant, it did not have the effect of removing the precincts covered
thereby from the protest. If these precincts were not withdrawn from the
protest, then the granting of Protestant's "Urgent Motion to Recall and