THE Court of Appeals (CA) has allowed a losing mayoralty bet in Rodriquez, Rizal to file her electoral protest against retired Army Lt. General Ronnie Evangelista who won the local race in the 2022 elections.
In a 21-page ruling promulgated on September 13, the appellate court’s Fourth Division directed lawyer Aris Bautista, in his capacity as clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, to accept the electoral protest filed by Karen Mae Hernandez.
Hernandez lost the mayoralty race in Rodriquez to Evangelista after the latter garnered 77,141 votes over her 74,358, or a margin of only 2,783 votes.
Alleging massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities attending the voting and counting of the votes, Hernandez prepared her protest against Evangelista.
Evangelista’s last major posting in the Army was superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, a post he served until 2019 when he resigned in the wake of the fatal hazing of Cadet 4th Class Darwin Dormitorio.
Under Section 7, Rule 2, of the 2022 Interim Amendments to the 2010 Rules of Procedure for Municipal Election Contests, Hernandez had a non-extendible period of 10 days from the date of proclamation, or until May 20, 2022, to file the electoral protest.
In her petition for mandamus, Hernandez asked the CA to compel Bautista to accept her electoral protest even if it was “belatedly filed” beyond the prescribed period for filing.
She blamed Bautista’s “unjustifiable and unwarranted refusal to perform a ministerial duty enjoined upon him by law” for the late filing.
“Atty. Bautista’s non-performance of the acts complained of during the pendency of this case will undeniably work injustice to petitioner and the constituents of Rodriguez, Rizal.
In the interest of substantial justice, petitioner’s election protest should be received and allowed to be filed so that it could be decided on the merits. Petitioner concluded that in refusing to receive her election protest, Atty. Bautista committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as well as abuse of authority and usurpation of the court’s functions,” Hernandez said in her plea.
Bautista told the court that the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus are not present in the case, and that Hernandez has no clear and unmistakable legal right to the act demanded because the reglementary period to file an election protest has already ended.
He also said it is not the ministerial duty of the clerk of court to receive, docket and accept payment of filing fees for an election protest consisting only of one copy and filed beyond office hours.
He also faulted Hernandez’ camp for filing a petition for mandamus on the last day of the reglementary period, which he added, is an act that is contrary to her sense of urgency.
But the CA sided with Hernandez and stressed she has a clear and unmistakable right to file the election protest.
“Under the Rule, any candidate who was voted for the same office and who received the second or third highest number of votes may file an election protest. Thus, petitioner has a clear and unmistakable right to file an election protest, which right should be acknowledged by the Office of the Clerk of Court,” said the CA ruling penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos Jr.
The appellate court also held that the act of receiving cases is clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or by reason of Bautista’s official station.
“Hence, it is his (Bautista’s) imperative duty to perform the act required under the 2002 Manual for Clerks of Court. The act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; hence, Atty. Bautista’s unjustified refusal to perform the same is tantamount to unlawful performance of duty,” the CA said, stressing that “it is Atty. Bautista’s ministerial duty to receive and docket all cases filed with the RTC. His duty requires neither the exercise of discretion nor judgment. He has no authority to pass upon the formal or substantive requirements of a pleading. His duty to receive pleadings, motions, and other court-bound papers is purely ministerial.”
And even assuming that Bautista found Hernandez’ petition flawed – that there was only one copy of the election protest, the verification and certification against non-forum shopping was not notarized, and no annexes were attached to the protest – the CA insisted he has no right to refuse the filing.
“It is the court, and not him, which will determine the sufficiency of the petition,” the appellate court said, adding that Bautista’s “unjustified and obstinate refusal to perform his ministerial duty” constitute unlawful neglect in the performance of his functions.
With this, the CA ordered Bautista to receive Hernandez’s election protest and for the latter to file the protest within a non-extendible period of five days from notice and pay the docket fees.
Concurring with the ruling are Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas Jr., and Perpetua Susana Atal-Pano.
