l\epublic of tbe ~bilippines

~upreme QCourt
;iffilanila

EN BANC

JOENAR VARGAS AGRAVANTE, G.R. No. 264029

Petitioner,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
- versus - ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,*
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO,
MARQUEZ,
KHO, JR., and
SINGH, JJ
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
MUMCWALTfilALCOURTOF
GOA, CAMARINES SUR, and Promulgated:
JOSEPH AMATA BLANCE,
Respondents. August 8, 2023

x---------------------------------~~..,.....~~~~
DECISION

GESMUNDO, C.J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65

of the Rules of Court, with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction filed by Joenar Vargas

• On leave.
1
Rollo, pp. 6-26.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 264029

Agravante (petitioner), assailing the July 2, 2019 Order2 of the Commission

on Elections (COMELEC) First Division (COMELEC Division) and the
September 20, 2022 Resolution3 of the COMELEC En Banc in EAC No. 167-
2018-B.

The Antecedents

Petitioner and Joseph Amata Blance (private respondent) were

candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines
Sur, in the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections
(BSK.E). Private respondent garnered 786 votes, while petitioner got 789
votes, the latter winning by a margin of three votes. Thus, petitioner was
proclaimed the duly elected Punong Barangay ofMatacla on May 15, 2018. 4

Not satisfied with the election result, private respondent filed a protest
on May 23, 2018 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Goa, Camarines
Sur. On May 30, 2018, petitioner filed an Answer with Counterclaim and with
Affirmative Defenses which are Grounds for a Motion to Dismiss and with
Counter-Protest. Private respondent subsequently filed his Answer to
Counterclaim/Counter-Protest on June 6, 2018. 5

After the issues were joined and due course given to the protest and
counter-protest, a preliminary conference was held on June 25, 2018 whereby
a revision committee was constituted. In said conference, the parties agreed
that after revision, they will simultaneously make their formal offer of
documentary evidence together with their memoranda with the end in view of
expediting the resolution of the case. Thereafter, the case shall be decided on
the basis of the memoranda, if any, revision reports, evidence so marked and
offered, and other pleadings forming part of the record. 6

MTC Decision

On October 15, 2018, the MTC promulgated its Decision7 granting the
protest, the dispositive portion of which reads: · ·

2 Id. at 29-30; signed by Presiding Commissioner Al A. Parrefio, and Commissioners Ma. Rowena· Amelia
V. Guanzon and Marlon S. Casquejo. . .
·_ Id. at 46-51; signed by .Chairman George Erwin M. Garcia, and Commissioners Socorro B_- Inting,
Marlon S. Casquejo, Aimee P. Ferolino, and Rey E. Bulay. ·
4
Id. at 52.
Id.
6
Id.
Id. at 52-77; penned by Judge Ramon V. Efondo.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 264029

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the proclamation of Joenar

V. Agravante as the winning candidate is hereby SET ASIDE and Joseph
A. Blance is hereby DECLARED as the elected Punong Barangay of
Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur in the May 14, 2018 BSKE.

Costs against the Protestee.

SO ORDERED. 8

According to the MTC, Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC

provides that no evidence shall be considered by the court unless it has been
formally offered. 9 On the basis of this provision, the MTC excluded from the
.official count a certain number of ballots that were not formally offered in
evidence by either petitioner or private respondent. 10 Thus, after the revision
of the ballots, the MTC held that private respondent obtained 789 votes as
against petitioner who received 784 votes, the former winning by a margin of
five votes. 11

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the COMELEC.

COMELEC Division Order

On July 2, 2019, the COMELEC Division issued an Order, thefallo of

which reads:

Accordingly, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED as it

hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant appeal for appellant's failure
to submit his Brief within the prescribed period pursuant to Section 9 (b ),
Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended.

SO ORDERED. 12

According to the COMELEC Division, based on petitioner's brief, he

furnished the same to private respondent through registered mail. However,
petitioner failed to submit an affidavit of mailing, the registry receipt as proof
of service, and a written explanation as to why service by mail was resorted
to in accordance with Secs. 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, in
relation to Sec. 3, Rule 12 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as

8
Id. at 77.
9
Id. at 62.
10 Id. at 55-61; petitioner failed to formally offer 12 of his exhibits, while respondent failed to offer 7 of
his exhibits.
11
Id. at 75-77.
12
Id. at 30.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 264029

ar~ended. 13_ Thus, petitioner's brief was deemed not filed for failure to comply
with the said mandatory requirements. 14

Dissatisfied with the said Order, petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration. 15

COMELEC En Banc Resolution

On September 20, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed

Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby RESOLVES to DENY

the instant Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, the Order
promulgated by the Commission (First Division) on 02 July 2019 is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 16

The COMELEC En Banc found no reason to reverse the ruling of the

COMELEC Division, holding that petitioner failed to present any
controverting evidence to justify his noncompliance with the rules and merely
stated that his fai!tJTe was only due to inadvertence. Considering that the
submission of documentary requirements is mandatory in nature and
noncompliance is a clear ground for dismissal, the COMELEC En Banc held
that the motion for reconsideration failed to raise new issues and substantial
matters that would warrant the reversal of the assailed Order. 17

Hence, this Petition.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner argues that the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse
. of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed his
appeal outright based on technical grounds. He argues that he immediately
rectified his procedural lapse by promptly filing a motion for reconsideration
and attaching the following: 1) affidavit of service and explanation of service
by registered mail, 2) certification from the Provincial Capitol Complex Post
Office of the fact of mailing, and 3) copies of the registry receipts. Despite his

13 Id. at 29.
14 Id. at 30.
15
Id. at 31-38.
16
Id. at 5 I.
17
Id. at 50.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 264029

substantial compliance, the COMELEC En Banc still denied his motion

without taking into account the importance of the issues raised and the prima
facie merit of his brief. 18

Moreover, petitioner argues that he is the real winner of the 2018 BSKE
with a winning margin of at least seven votes. In fact, even the MTC itself
acknowledged the fact that if the ballots that were not formally offered were
to be. considered, the outcome of the revision might change in his favor. 19
According to petitioner, the said ballots were marked as exhibits by the
Revision Committee, attached to the records of the election protest, and listed
in the revision report. 20

Petitioner also pointed out that the COMELEC has already issued a
certificate of finality and entry of judgment on October 26, 2022, even though
he received the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc only on
October 18, 2022. Thus, unless a TRO and/or a status quo ante order is issued
by this Court, the Decision of the MTC and the Resolution of the COMELEC
En Banc may be implemented anytime to the great detriment of the people of
Barangay Matacla. 21

In its Comment, 22 respondent COMELEC, through the Office of the

Solicitor General, argues that it did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
denying petitioner's appeal due to the latter's failure to perfect the said appeal
in accordance with law. 23 The COMELEC emphasized that petitioner merely
offered flimsy excuses for his noncompliance with the rules and asked for
liberality as if it were a right he is entitled to. 24

According to the COMELEC, the required documents specified in the

COMELEC Division's Order are mandatory, and petitioner's noncompliance
therewith is a valid reason for the dismissal of his appeal. In addition,
· · petitioner failed to provide any evidence to excuse his noncompliance with
the rules when he filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En
Banc. 25 The COMELEC also argues that petitioner is not entitled to injunctive
relief for failing to establish the necessary requisites for its issuance. 26 Thus,

18
Id.atll-14.
19
Id.atl4-15andll4.
'6 Id.at 17.
21
Id. at 20-21.
" Id. at 134-149.
23
Id. at 136.
24
Id. at 140.
25
Id. at 140-141.
" Id. at I 65.
I
Decision 6 G.R. No. 264029

the COMELEC prays that the petition be dismissed similar to this Court's
ruling in the recent case of Coro v. Commission on Elections 27 (Coro).

In his Reply ,28 petitioner argues that there is compelling reason for this
Court to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction on the ground of his substantial
compliance with the rules. 29 He also argues that the instant case warrants
relaxation or liberality in the application of the rules in the interest of
°
substantial justice. 3 Furthermore, petitioner is of the opinion that the case of
Coro is not on all fours with the instant case. 31 Aside from his substantial
compliance with the rules, petitioner invokes the 1958 case of Reforma v. De
Luna 32 (Reforma ), where this Court held that the lower court erred in not
examining certain ballots for the sole reason that they were not formally
presented as evidence. 33

Issues

I.

WHETHER THE COMELEC EN BANC COMMITTED

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING
PETITIONER'S APPEAL DUE TO THE LATTER'S·
FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.

II.

WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A TRO, STATUS

QUO ANTE ORDER, OR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION.

The Court's Ruling

The scope of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for certiorari under

Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is limited; the petition
must show that the COMELEC En Banc acted without or in excess of its

27 Id. at !63-165; G.R. No. 258307, July 26, 2022.

28 Id. at 176-187.
29 Id. at 177-178.
30
Id. at 178.
31 Jd.atl80.
32 l 04 Phil. 278 (l 958).
33
Id. at 287.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 264029.

jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction. 34

Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as a whimsical, arbitrary, or

capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform
a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. 35 In
the process of determining the existence of grave abuse of discretion, this
Court looks into: ( 1) whether the act involved was done contrary to the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (2) whether it was executed
whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal
bias. 36 Additionally, mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be
grave. 37 Unless it is firmly established that the COMELEC En Banc
committed grave abuse of discretion, this Court would not interfere with .its
decision. 38

In this case, the COMELEC En Banc did not commit abuse .of
discretion, much less grave abuse of discretion, when it dismissed petitioner's
appeal considering that its September 20, 2022 Resolution is duly suppoite,d
by law and the records of the case.

It is undisputed that when petitioner was required by the COMELEC

Division to file his brief, he failed to submit an affidavit of mailing, the
registry receipt as proof of service, and a written explanation as to why service
by mail was resorted to. Given that these are mandatory requirements under
Secs. 11 39 and 13,40 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 3,41 Rule
12 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended, the COMELEC
Division considered petitioner's brief as not filed. Consequently, it dismissed

34 Buenafe v. Commfssfon on Elections, G.R. No. 260374, June 28, 2022.

35 Aggabao v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258456, July 26, 2022.
36 Marquez v. Commission on Elections, 861 Phil. 667, 684 (2019).
37 Buenafe v. Commission on Elections, supra.
38 Id.
39 Section I I. Priorities in modes ofservice andfiling. ~ Whenever practicable, the service and filing of
pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the
court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing
was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
40 Section 13. Proof ofservice. - Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party
served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement
of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of
an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 7 of this Rule. If service is
made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the
mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in
lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee.
41 Section 3. Mode, Completion and Proof of Service. -Service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders or
judgment and other papers, the completeness thereof, and proof of such service shall be made in the
manner prescribed by the Rules of Court of the Philippines.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 264029

petitioner's appeal for his failure to submit his brief within the prescribed
· d , pursuant to sec. 9(b ), 42 Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
peno

When petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration with the

COMELEC En Banc, the latter denied the motion since petitioner failed to
justify his noncompliance with the rules and failed to raise new issues or
substantial matters that would warrant reversal of the COMELEC Division's
Order. The COMELEC En Banc cited Sec. 1, Rule 19 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, which provides that "[a] motion for reconsideration may
be filed on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision,
order or ruling; or that the said decision, order or ruling is contrary to law."
Considering that petitioner was unable to show the existence of either ground,
and merely argued that his failure to comply with the rules should not
automatically result in the dismissal of his appeal, the COMELEC En Banc
denied his motion.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the COMELEC Division and the
COMELEC En Banc acted in full conformity with applicable laws, rules, and
jurisprudence without any hint of whimsicality, arbitrariness, or
· capriciousness. Their strict adherence to the rules cannot be deemed grave
abuse of discretion nor even mere abuse of discretion. In fact, it is the inverse
that holds true; the manifest disregard of basic rules and procedures is
precisely what constitutes grave abuse of discretion. 43 Time and again, this
Court has held that procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate
adjudication of cases, deliberately set in place to prevent arbitrariness in the
administration of justice. 44 Since the right to appeal is not a constitutional
right but a mere statutory privilege, anyone who seeks to invoke such privilege
must comply with the applicable rules; otherwise, the right to appeal is
forfeited. 45

While petitioner does not deny his procedural lapses, he argues that t_he
COMELEC En Banc should have afforded him liberality considering his
substantial compliance with the rules and the prima facie merit of his brief.
However, it must be recalled that the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be
made without any valid reasons to support it. 46 Any party seeking a liberal
application of the rules is required to present strong and compelling reasons

42 Section 9. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. - The appeal may be dismissed upon motion of either
party or at the instance of the Commission on any of the following grounds:
xxxx
(b) Failure of the appellant to file copies of his brief within the time provided by these rules[.]
43 Cruz v. People, 812 Phil. 166, 174 (2017), citing Spouses Crisologo v. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corp.,
728 Phil. 315,328 (2014).
44 China Banking Corp v St Francis Square Realty Corp, G.R. Nos. 232600-04, July 27, 2022.
45 Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Subic Bay Manne Exploratorzum, Inc, GR No. 237591
November JO, 2021. .
46 Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.246313, February / 5, 2022.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 264029

to warrant the suspension of the rules. 47 To merit liberality, petitioner must

show that there is reasonable cause justifying his noncompliance with the
rules and that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the
administration of substantive justice.48

As this Court held in National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v.

Bautista: 49

Liberality in the application of the rules is not an end in itself. It

must be pleaded with factual basis and must be allowed for equitable ends.
There must be no indication that the violation of the rule is due to negligence
or design. Liberality is an extreme exception, justifiable only when equity
exists.

Here, petit10ner failed to show any reasonable cause justifying his

noncompliance with the rules. Petitioner's explanation that his noncompliance
was due to mere inadvertence cannot, in any degree, be considered . as
reasonable cause that would justify the suspension of the rules. In fact, his
failure to provide an acceptable explanation for such noncompliance only
highlights his complete disregard of procedural rules, further precluding any
justification for their liberal application. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion
can be attributed to the COMELEC En Banc for dismissing petitioner's appeal.

Furthermore, even if the procedural errors committed by petitioner

were set aside, the petition remains bereft of merit.

Petitioner argues that the MTC erred in not considering the ballots that
he failed to formally offer in evidence, so citing Reforma, where the Court held
that it was erroneous for the lower court to not examine certain ballots "for
the sole reason that they were not formally presented as evidence." 51 However,
with the advent of the 1987 Constitution and the adoption of new rules, the
case cited by petitioner can no longer be squarely applied to the instant case.

To recall, Reforma was resolved based on the provisions of Republic

Act No. 180, also known as the Revised Election Code, which was the
applicable law during that time. The Court therein observed that the Revised
Election Code did not provide for any particular procedure for the disposition
of election cases once the issues are joined, and that the Rules of Court shall

47 Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Subic Bay Marine Exp/oratorium, Inc., supra.
48 Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v. Commission on Audit, supra.
49 G.R. No. 232120, September 30, 2020, citing Viva Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Keppel Philippines Mining,

50
Inc., 781 Phil. 95, 99 (2016). (
Rollo, pp. 14-15.
51
Reforma v. De Luna, supra note 32, at 287.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 264029

not apply to election cases except by analogy or in a suppletory manner. On

the other hand, the MTC herein resolved the present case by applying A.M.
No. 07-4-15-SC. 52 Sec. 2, Rule 13 of the said rules provides:

Section 2. Offer of Evidence. - The court shall consider uo

evidence that has not been formally offered. Offer of evidence shall be
done orally on the last day of hearing allowed for each party after the
presentation of the last witness. The opposing party shall be required to
immediately interpose objections thereto. The court shall rule on the offer
of evidence in open court. However, the court may, at its discretion, allow
the party to make an offer of evidence in writing, which shall be submitted
within three days. If the court rejects any evidence offered, the party ·ma,y
make a tender of the excluded evidence. (Emphasis supplied)

The provision is clear and requires no further interpretation; if any piece

of evidence was not formally offered by the parties, then such evidence cannot
be considered by the court. In this case, petitioner himself admitted that he
failed to offer in evidence 12 ballots due to his own inadvertence. 53 Pursuant
to Sec. 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, the MTC was proscribed from
considering the ballots that were not formally offered by petitioner in
resolving the case. It bears to emphasize that A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC was
promulgated on May 3, 2007 by none other than this Court pursuant to its
exclusive and expanded rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution. This
strengthened rule-making power was discussed in Echegaray v. Secretary of
Justice: 54

The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more

independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule[-]making power
of this Court. Its Sec. 5(5), Article VIII provides:

[x xx x]

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:

[x xx x]

( 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
underprivileged. 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

52 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal ~Id Barangay
Officials.
53
Rollo, p. 14.
54
361 Phil. 73 (1999).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 264029

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.

The rule[-]making power of this Court was expanded. This Court for the
first time was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the
first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and
. quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took
away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with
Congress, more so with the Executive. 55 (Italics omitted)

The 1987 Constitution did not patently strengthen the exclusive rule-
making power of the Court only for the Court itself to neglect it. 56 Rules m-e
promulgated for the benefit of all, and the Court is duty-bound to follow them
and observe the noble purpose for their issuance. 57 Given the applicability and
the unequivocal nature of Sec. 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, as well as
petitioner's failure to justify his noncompliance with the pertinent rules, it is
not only proper but crucial, for this Court to apply the said provision. As the
highest court of the land, this Court is mandated to firmly enforce its own
rules in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and to maintain
impartiality in the administration of justice. Otherwise, the fundamental
principle of fairness upon which our legal system is built would be rendered
meaningless.

In addition, the rule on formal offer of evidence is by no means merely

technical. The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the
constitutional guarantee of due process since the parties must be given the
opportunity to review the evidence submitted against them and take the
necessary actions to secure their case. 58 As laid down in Sec. 2, Rule 13 of
A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, after the formal offer of evidence of a party, the
opposing party is required to immediately interpose his or her objections.
Afterwards, the court rules on the formal offer of evidence. Without such
formal offer, the opposing party is effectively deprived of the opportunity to
object. Thus, the MTC committed no error in its judgment and it proper'ly
acknowledged that its hands were tied by the rules when it stated that it could
not consider the evidence not formally offered by petitioner. 59

55 Id. at 88, cited in People v. Montierro, G.R. No. 254564, July 26, 2022.
56
People v. Montierro, id.
57 Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 235832, November 3, 2020.
58 Republic v. Spouses Gimenez, 776 Phil. 233,256(2016).
59
Rollo, p. 114.
Decision 12 G.R. No: 264029

Neither is the Court swayed by petitioner's insistence that he was the

true winner of the 2018 BSKE. Petitioner relies heavily on the MTC's
statement that the excluded ballots may have changed the results of the
revision. Such pronouncement is obiter dictum at best, and highly speculative
at worst. The trial court cannot, without crossing into the realm of
prejudgment, make an appreciation of ballots not properly admitted into
evidence. Furthermore, the MTC uniformly and correctly excluded all ballots
not formally offered. Notably, there were seven other ballots being contested
and/or claimed by private respondent that were likewise excluded from the
revision of ballots for the same reason. ·

To summarize, petitioner failed to comply with Secs. 11 and 13 of the

Rules of Court, in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 12 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as amended, as well as Sec. 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
Further, petitioner failed to justify his noncompliance with the rules. If this
Court were to extend liberality to petitioner despite his unjustified disregard
of the rules, it would directly be taking part in undennining the rule of law
and the public's trust in the judicial system by promoting arbitrariness in the
enforcement of procedural rules.

While it has been held in previous cases that "[t]echnicalities and

procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way
of the true will of the electorate,"60 such pronouncement cannot be construed
as a license for parties in election cases to disregard procedural rules
altogether. This Court never intended to establish the precedent that the "true
will of the electorate" may be used as an excuse for all kinds of procedural
errors., no matter how numerous or serious they may be. Noncompliance with
the rules of procedure in election cases cannot be justified by the mere
invocation of the determination of the "true will of the electorate," and rteither
is the liberal application of the rules automatically be granted by such
invocation. To rule otherwise would be akin to holding that the technical rules
of procedure need not be followed in election cases.

It must be emphasized that rules of procedure are intended to ensure the

orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in
judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. 61 It is a mistake to suppose that
substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as has
often been suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be
62
permitted if it will result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.
The actual policy of the courts is to give effect to both, as complementing each

60 Rul!oda v. Commission on Elections, 443 Phil. 649, 655 (2003).

61 PPC Asia Corp. v. Department of Trade and Industry, G.R. No. 246439, September 8, 2020, citing
Limpot v. Court of Appeals, 252 Phil. 377,379 (1989).
62 Limpot v. Court of Appeals, id.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 264029

other, in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties.
Observance of both substantive rights is equally guaranteed by due process,
whatever the source of such rights may be. 63

Given that the dismissal of the instant petition is warranted, petitioner's

prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction need not be
discussed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The July 2, 2019 Order

of the Commission on Elections First Division and the September 20, 2022
Resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc in EAC No.
167-2018-B are AFFIRMED.

Petitioner's urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining

order and/or status quo ante order and/or preliminary injunction is
accordingly DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

AL~ G.GESMUNDO
/ ~ h i e f Justice

63
Id. at 379-380.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 264029

WE CONCUR:

Senior Associate Justice

S. CAGUIOA ~Do
!Ce Associate Justice

./;t+-
AMY t./LAzjRO-JA VIER HEN
A~sociate Justice Associate Justice

ROD

(On Leave)
SAMUER~ RICARDO R. ROSARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
Decision 15 G.R. No. 264029

¼~
JQ'~~ASP.MARQUEZ / ~~
----------=~
~,£'.~ . -.
OT.KHO, ~
~-

~k~~ciate Justice Associate Justice · ' .

•
,R:r:;(_l'ILOMENA D. SINGH
..__ ____,./' / Associate Justice

,/
/ CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.