Aruelo, Jr. v CA (Constitution)

Aruelo, Jr. v CA
GR No. 107852 October 20, 1993

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:chanrobles virtual law library 1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under- privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

FACTS:
(1) Aruelo and Gatchalian were rival candidates in the May 11, 1992 elections for the office of the Vice- Mayor of the Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan. Gatchalian won over Aruelo by a margin of four votes, such that on May 13, 1992, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed him as the duly elected Vice-Mayor of Balagtas, Bulacan.
(2) On May 22, 1992, Aruelo filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition docketed as SPC No. 92-130, seeking to annul Gatchalian's proclamation on the ground of "fraudulent alteration and tampering" of votes in the tally sheets and the election returns.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by declaring that Gatchalian’s answer with counter- protest and counterclaim was timely filed

HELD:
We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

RATIO:
An election protest does not merely concern the personal interests of rival candidates for an office. Over and above the desire of the candidates to win, is the deep public interest to determine the true choice of the people. For this reason, it is a well-established principle that laws governing election protests must be

liberally construed to the end that the popular will, ex pressed in the election of public officers, will not, by purely technical reasons, be defeated (Unda v. Commission on Elections, 190 SCRA 827[1990]; De Leon v. Guadiz , J r., 104 SCRA591 [1981]; Macasundig v. Macalangan, 13 SCRA 577[1965]; Corocoro v. Bascara,9 SCRA 519 [1963]).