EN BANC

[G.R. No. 123037. March 21, 1997.]

TEODORO Q. PEA, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ALFREDO E.
ABUEG, JR., respondents.

Villaraza & Cruz for petitioner.

Pablo S. Ebol and Pedro J Callero, Jr. for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. POLITICAL LAW; LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT; HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL; REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE; INSUFFICIENCY IN
FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE PETITION CONSTITUTE A GROUND FOR
IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL; REASON FOR THE RULE. A perusal of the Petition Ad
Cautelam, reveals that Petitioner makes no specic mention of the precincts
where widespread election, fraud and irregularities occurred. This is a fatal
omission, as it goes into the very substance of the protest. Under Section 21 of
the Revised Rules of Procedure of HRET, insuciency in form and substance of
the petition constitutes a ground for the immediate dismissal of the Petition. The
prescription that the petition must be sucient in form and substance means
that the petition must be more than merely rhetorical. If the allegations
contained therein are unsupported by even the faintest whisper of authority in
fact and law, then there is no other course than to dismiss the petition,
otherwise, the assumption of an elected public ocial may, and will always be
held up by petitions of this sort by the losing candidate.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE DEFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE ARISES FROM THE
FAILURE TO ALLEGE THE CONTESTED PRECINCTS. Notably, the instant
petition ad cautelam poses a more serious inadequacy than a mere failure to
specify the number of votes which would inure to the protestant, as was the case
in Gallares vs. Casenas, or the failure to impugn the validity of some of the
ballots cast, as in Yalung vs. Atienza, supra, both of which cases were decided in
the 1920s. The defect in the instant case arises from the failure to allege the
contested precincts. Only a bare allegation of "massive fraud, widespread
intimidation and terrorism and other serious irregularities," without specication,
and substantiation, of where and how these occurrences took place, appears in
the petition. We cannot allow an election protest based on such imsy averments
to prosper, otherwise, the whole election process will deteriorate into an endless
stream of crabs pulling at each other, racing to disembark from the water.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISIONS AND
ORDERS OF ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS OPERATES ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL. While it is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 conceded that statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally
construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public ocers
may not be defeated by mere technical questions, the rule likewise stands, that
in an election protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had
raised in his original or amended pleading led prior to the lapse of the statutory
period for ling of the protest. Admittedly, the rule is well-established that the
power to annul an election should be exercised with the greatest care as it
involves the free and fair expression of the popular will. It is only in extreme
cases of fraud and under circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest degree
a fundamental and wanton disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and
then only when it becomes impossible to take any other step. . . . This is as it
should be, for the democratic system is good for the many although abhorred by
a few. In sums, this Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral
tribunals operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the tribunal. Only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall
the Court interfere with the electoral tribunal's judgment. There is no such
showing in the present petition.

DECISION

TORRES, JR., J : p

Assailed herein is the October 12, 1995 Resolution 1 of the House of

Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) dismissing the Petition Ad Cautelam of
the Petitioner Teodoro Q. Pea in HRET Case No. 95-014. Petitioner questioned
the election of the private respondent Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr. as Member of the
House of Representatives representing the Second District of the province of
Palawan.
Petitioner and the private respondent were contenders for the said Congressional
Oce in the May 8, 1995 elections. On May 12, 1995, upon canvassing the votes
cast, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Palawan proclaimed the private
respondent as the winner.
On May 22, 1995, the instant petition was led with the HRET, wherein the
petitioner, as protestant, averred that:
"7. The elections in the precincts of the Second District of Palawan were
tainted with massive fraud, widespread vote-buying, intimidation and
terrorism and other serious irregularities committed before, during and
after the voting, and during the counting of votes and the preparation of
election returns and certicates of canvass which aected the results of
the election. Among the fraudulent acts committed were the massive
vote-buying and intimidation of voters, disenfranchisement of petitioner's
known supporters through systematic deletion of names from the lists of
voters, allowing persons to vote in excess of the number of registered
voters, misappreciation, misreading and non-reading of protestant's
ballots and other irregularities.

8. According to the Statement of Votes by Precinct/Municipality/City, the

protestee allegedly obtained 52,967 votes, while the protestant allegedly
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 obtained 46,023 votes, or a dierence of 6,944 votes. A copy of said
document is attached hereto as Annex 'B'.

9. Had the massive fraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism and

other serious irregularities not been committed, the result of the elections
for Member of the House of Representatives would have been dierent
and the protestant would have garnered the highest number of votes for
the Oce of Member of the House of Representatives in the Second
District of Palawan, which was the true expression of the will of the voters
of the Province of Palawan.

10. The proclamation by the members of the Provincial Board of

Canvassers of Palawan that the protestee was allegedly the duly elected
Member of the House of Representatives for the Second District of
Palawan is contrary to law and to the true expression of the will of the
voters of the Province of Palawan." 2

Private respondent-Protestee Abueg led an Answer With Armative Defense,

Counterclaim and Counter-Protest 3 on June 5, 1995, to which Pea led a Reply
on June 23, 1995. Subsequent to the ling of his Answer, Abueg led a Motion to
Dismiss 4 the Petition on June 22, 1995, averring that the HRET has not acquired
jurisdiction over the petition, the same being insucient in form and substance.
In essence, the motion to dismiss anchors its challenge on the fact that the
petition failed to allege the precincts where the massive fraud and
disenfranchisement of voters occurred, nor did it point out how many votes
would be gained by the protestant as a result of the same.
Petitioner led an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 5 on July 10, 1995,
attaching thereto a Summary of Contested Precincts, naming 700 precincts
where election irregularities allegedly occurred.
In its Resolution of October 12, 1995, the respondent HRET ruled that although it
had jurisdiction over the petition, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualications of the members of the House of
Representatives, the said petition, however, fails to state a cause of action, and is
therefore, insucient in form and substance, meriting its dismissal.
The HRET states pertinently:
"There are 743 precincts in the second congressional district of Palawan
which is comprised of Puerto Princesa City and the municipalities of
Aborlan, Balabac, Bataraza, Brooke's Point, Narra, Quezon, and Marcos
(Ordinance appended to the 1973 Constitution). The Protestant failed to
specify which are the 700 precincts, out of the said 743 precincts, that
are included in his protest; he even failed to allege the municipalities where
the protested precincts are located. Worse, the body of the Petition does
not even mention the 700 precincts. Reference to them is made only in
the Prayer. These omissions prevent Protestee from being apprised of
the issues which he has to meet and make it virtually impossible for the
Tribunal to determine which ballot boxes have to be collected. cdtai

The Supreme Court, in Fernando vs. Pastor M. Endencia, Judge of First

Instance of Bulacan, et al. (No. 46099, 66 Phil 148, 150, August 30,
1938) observed that, '[w]hile the election law does not say so directly, it is
clearly inferred from its relevant provisions that where the grounds of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 contest are that legal votes were rejected and illegal votes received, the
motion of protest should state in what precincts such irregularities
occurred. . . . The specication in the motion of protest of the election
precinct or precincts where the alleged irregularities occurred, is required
in order to apprise the contestee of the issues which he has to meet. . . .'
In its more recent resolution in Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD) vs.
COMELEC (G.R. No. 78302, May 26, 1987, 150 SCRA 665), the Supreme
Court held that the petition therein 'could have been dismissed outright as
decient in form and substance, being couched in general terms only,
without precise indication of the time, place and manner of the
commission of the alleged irregularities.' . . .

Similarly, this Tribunal, in dismissing an election protest, observed that the

protest, in general language, "impugns, contests and protests the illegal,
improper and fraudulent electoral practices, acts and deeds" of the
protestee and "impugns and contests all the election returns in the lone
district of Catanduanes." The tribunal held that this scattershot allegation
is not allowed in election contests and that "it is necessary to make a
precise indication of the precincts protested and a specication of the
claimed oenses to have been committed by the parties." (Alberto vs.
Tapia, HRET Case No. 37, January 23, 1989)

While Protestant has attached as Annex "A" to his Opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss, led on 10 July 1995, a Summary of contested
Precincts, the defects in his Protest were not cured thereby as the
Summary was submitted only after the Motion to Dismiss had been led.
The Opposition and the attached Summary do not amend the original
Petition. There is not even a prayer in the Opposition suggesting such
amendment.
Moreover, in a Resolution promulgated on 17 June 1995, the Commission
on Elections en banc (COMELEC) dismissed herein Petitioner's Petition
(SPA Case No. 95-258) to declare a failure of elections in the second
district of Palawan. Copy of said Resolution was sent to Petitioner Pea
through registered mail and was received by him on 28 June 1995. Since
Petitioner did not appeal from the Resolution, it became nal on 3 July
1995 pursuant to Section 13 (b), Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure. Even assuming that SPA Case No. 95-258 had tolled the
running of the period to le a protest and Protestant Pea's Petition Ad
Cautelam was thus converted into a regular protest (not Ad Cautelam)
eective upon the nality of the ocial COMELEC resolution, thereby
providing him an opportunity to amend it to cure the defects cited above,
Protestant took no positive and armative steps for that purpose.
Protestant alleges in his Opposition that Protestee has likewise failed to
specify the 47 precincts he contests in his Counter-Protest. This omission
merely renders Protestee's Counter-Protest defective for insuciency in
form and substance and for failure to state a cause of action. It does not
cure the fatal defects in Protestant's Petition.
WHEREFORE, for failure of the Petition (Protest) to state a cause of
action because it is fatally insucient in form and substance, the Tribunal
Resolved to GRANT Protestee's Motion to Dismiss and to DISMISS, as it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 hereby DISMISSES, the instant Petition of Protest. As a logical
consequence thereof and also for the same reason, Protestee's Counter-
Protest is DISMISSED.

No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED." 6

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the said resolution was denied by the
respondent tribunal on November 14, 1995.
In this Petition for Certiorari, led on December 29, 1995, petitioner argues that
the respondent HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to having
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the election protest of
petitioner considering that:
I
"THE PETITION AD CAUTELAM DATED 22 MAY 1995 STATED A CAUSE OF
ACTION AND IS SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE.
II

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITION WAS INITIALLY DEFECTIVE

BECAUSE IT FAILED TO SPECIFY THE CONTESTED PRECINCTS, SAID
DEFECT WAS CURED WHEN PETITIONER SUBMITTED A SUMMARY OF
THE CONTESTED PRECINCTS WHICH FORMS PART OF THE RECORD OF
THE RESPONDENT HRET."

It is the Petitioner's view that the instant election protest is sucient in form
and substance even while failing to specify the precincts where irregularities
allegedly occurred. Nowhere is it provided that the specication of the precincts
is a jurisdictional requirement that must be complied with in order that an
election protest can be entertained by the HRET. To support his submission,
petitioner cites the cases of Yalung vs. Atienza, 52 Phil 781, Arao vs. COMELEC,
210 SCRA 790 and Gallares vs. Casenas, 48 Phil 362, the latter stating that:
"From a reading of the allegations of the protest, it may be seen that
frauds, irregularities and violations of the law are alleged therein, which, if
true, would undoubtedly change the result of the elections.

The fact that in the protest the number of votes which would result in
favor of the protestant after the judicial counting is not specied, does
not aect the right of the protestant, for it being known that said
omission is a defect of the protest, the same may be cured by a
specication of the votes mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the
protest, without thereby adding new grounds for those already alleged
by the protestant."

Applying the same principle to the specication of precincts in the instant case,
the defect in the petition should have been cured by the opposition to the private
respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
Moreover, the fact that the HRET did not summarily dismiss the Petition Ad
Cautelam, and instead, required the private respondent Abueg to le an Answer,
the HRET has thus made a prior determination that the petition is sucient in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 form and substance.
We do not agree.
In the rst place, in requiring the private respondent to answer the petition, the
HRET was not ruling on the formal and substantive suciency of the petition.
The order to require an answer is but a matter of course, as under the Revised
Rules of Procedure of the HRET, it is provided that:
"RULE 22. Summons. Upon the ling of the petition, the Clerk of the
Tribunal shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the
protestee or respondent together with a copy of the petition, requiring
him within ten (10) days from receipt thereof to le his answer."

As to the adequacy of the protest, we agree with respondent HRET in ruling for
the insuciency of the same.
A perusal of the Petition Ad Cautelam, reveals that Petitioner makes no specic
mention of the precincts where widespread election, fraud and irregularities
occurred. This is a fatal omission, as it goes into the very substance of the
protest. Under Section 21 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of HRET,
insuciency in form and substance of the petition constitutes a ground for the
immediate dismissal of the Petition.
The prescription that the petition must be sucient in form and substance
means that the petition must be more than merely rhetorical. If the allegations
contained therein are unsupported by even the faintest whisper of authority in
fact and law, then there is no other course than to dismiss the petition,
otherwise, the assumption of an elected public ocial may, and will always be
held up by petitions of this sort by the losing candidate.
Notably, the instant petition ad cautelam poses a more serious inadequacy than
a mere failure to specify the number of votes which would inure to the
protestant, as was the case in Gallares vs. Casenas, or the failure to impugn the
validity of some of the ballots cast, as in Yalung vs. Atienza, supra, both of which
cases were decided in the 1920s. The defect in the instant case arises from the
failure to allege the contested precincts. Only a bare allegation of "massive fraud,
widespread intimidation and terrorism and other serious irregularities", without
specication, and substantiation, of where and how these occurrences took place,
appears in the petition. We cannot allow an election protest based on such imsy
averments to prosper, otherwise, the whole election process will deteriorate into
an endless stream of crabs pulling at each other, racing to disembark from the
water.
On his second point of argument, Petitioner likewise fails to impress. The Court
has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo vs. HRET, 7 that substantial amendments to
the protest may be allowed only within the same period for ling the election
protest, which, under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules of Procedure is ten (10) days
after the proclamation of the winner.
While it is conceded that statutes providing for election contests are to be
liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public
ocers may not be defeated by mere technical questions, the rule likewise
stands, that in an election protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading led prior to the lapse of
the statutory period for ling of the protest. 8
Admittedly, the rule is well-established that the power to annul an election
should be exercised with the greatest care as it involves the free and fair
expression of the popular will. It is only in extreme cases of fraud and under
circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest degree a fundamental and
wanton disregard of the law that elections are annulled, and then only when it
becomes impossible to take any other step. 9 This is as it should be, for the
democratic system is good for the many although abhorred by a few.
In sum, this Court's jurisdiction to review decisions and orders of electoral
tribunals operates only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the tribunal. Only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall
the Court interfere with the electoral tribunal's judgment. There is no such
showing in the present petition.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby resolves to DISMISS the present
petition for lack of merit. The Resolution of the respondent House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal dated October 12, 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr. and
Panganiban, JJ ., concur.
Padilla, J ., took no part; was Chairman of HRET when assailed resolution was
issued.
Regalado, J ., took no part; Chairman of HRET.
Davide, Jr., J ., took no part; was a member of HRET when challenged resolution
was passed.
Romero, J ., took no part; Member of HRET.
Bellosillo, J ., took no part due to relation to party.
Melo, J ., took no part; Member of HRET.

Footnotes

1. Petition, Attachment "A", p. 20, Rollo.

2. Petition, Attachment "C", p. 31-32, Rollo.
3. Petition, Attachment "D", p. 38, Rollo.
4. Petition, Attachment "F", p. 58, Rollo.

5. Petition, Attachment "G", p. 65, Rollo.

6. Pp. 22-25, Rollo.
7. G.R. No. 118597, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 384.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Ibid.
9. Idem.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com