|
|
|
|
Second. Petitioner alleges that private respondent failed to serve him a copy of the petition for annulment of proclamation filed with the COMELEC. In reply, private respondent submitted the registry receipt and the return card9 [Comment, Annex 2; Id., p. 83.] to prove that a copy of the said petition was received on June 26, 1998 by a certain Tudila M. Angelia on behalf of petitioner. Petitioner admits the receipt of said mail, but avers that it did not contain a copy of the petition for annulment of proclamation in the COMELEC but of the petition for quo warranto filed by private respondent in the Regional Trial Court, Abuyog, Leyte.10 [Reply to Comment of Private Respondent; Id., pp. 107-108.] As private respondent points out, however, the petition for quo warranto was filed by his former counsel, the Martinez & Martinez Law Office, and a copy of said petition was already sent to petitioner. On the other hand, the petition for annulment of proclamation was filed by his new counsel, the Astorga & Macamay Law Office. Since a copy of the petition for quo warranto had previously been served on petitioner, there could be no reason for private respondent’s new counsel to serve it again on petitioner. Petitioner likewise claims that private respondent engaged in forum-shopping because, after filing a petition for quo warranto with the Regional Trial Court, Abuyog, Leyte, private respondent filed the present petition for annulment of proclamation with the COMELEC. This contention is bereft of merit. First,
private respondent withdrew the quo warranto case before
filing the petition for annulment of proclamation. Second, while the
filing of a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent
filing of a pre-proclamation controversy, this principle admits of several
exceptions, such as when such petition is not the proper remedy.11 [Samad v. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631 (1993).] Under
§253 of the Omnibus Election Code, the grounds for a petition for quo
warranto are ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines of the respondent. Since in the present case, private
respondent alleged the existence of manifest errors in the preparation of
election returns, clearly, the proper remedy is not a petition for quo
warranto but a petition for annulment of proclamation. En
Banc, Justice Mendoza, DIOSCORO
O. ANGELIA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENTINO
R. TAN, respondents
[G.R. No. 135468. May 31, 2000]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
