Agravante vs. COMELEC

Strict compliance with mandatory procedural rules on proof of service and formal offer of evidence is required in election protest appeals, and the COMELEC's enforcement of these rules does not constitute grave abuse of discretion; mere inadvertence does not warrant liberal application of the rules.

Petitioner and private respondent were rival candidates for Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur in the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. The ensuing election protest before the MTC was governed by A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, promulgated by the Supreme Court on May 3, 2007 pursuant to its exclusive and expanded rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. That rule-making power, as discussed in Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, removed from Congress the authority to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, vesting it exclusively in the Court.

Petitioner Joenar Vargas Agravante and private respondent Joseph Amata Blance were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of Matacla, Goa, Camarines Sur, in the May 14, 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Private respondent garnered 786 votes while petitioner received 789 votes, winning by a margin of three votes. Petitioner was proclaimed the duly elected Punong Barangay on May 15, 2018.

Dissatisfied with the result, private respondent filed an election protest before the MTC of Goa, Camarines Sur on May 23, 2018. Petitioner filed an Answer with Counterclaim, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Protest on May 30, 2018, and private respondent filed his Answer to the Counterclaim/Counter-Protest on June 6, 2018. After the issues were joined, a preliminary conference was held on June 25, 2018, where a revision committee was constituted. The parties agreed that after revision, they would simultaneously make their formal offer of documentary evidence together with their memoranda, and the case would be decided on the basis of the memoranda, revision reports, evidence marked and offered, and other pleadings forming part of the record.

On October 15, 2018, the MTC promulgated its Decision granting the protest. Applying Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which provides that no evidence shall be considered by the court unless formally offered, the MTC excluded from the official count ballots that were not formally offered in evidence by either party — specifically, 12 of petitioner's exhibits and 7 of private respondent's exhibits. After revision, the MTC held that private respondent obtained 789 votes against petitioner's 784, the former winning by a margin of five votes. The MTC set aside petitioner's proclamation and declared private respondent the elected Punong Barangay. The MTC acknowledged that if the excluded ballots were considered, the outcome might change, but stated that its hands were tied by the rules.

Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division, in its July 2, 2019 Order, dismissed the appeal outright. Petitioner had filed his brief but 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, as required under Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 3, Rule 12 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The brief was deemed not filed, and the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Section 9(b), Rule 22 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the COMELEC En Banc denied on September 20, 2022, finding that petitioner failed to present controverting evidence to justify his noncompliance and merely attributed his failure to inadvertence. The COMELEC En Banc held that the submission of documentary requirements is mandatory and noncompliance is a clear ground for dismissal, and that the motion for reconsideration failed to raise new issues or substantial matters warranting reversal.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his appeal outright based on technical grounds, asserting that he immediately rectified his procedural lapse by filing a motion for reconsideration attaching the affidavit of service, certification from the Provincial Capitol Complex Post Office, and copies of the registry receipts.
• Substantial Compliance: Petitioner maintained that he substantially complied with the rules and that the COMELEC En Banc should have taken into account the importance of the issues raised and the prima facie merit of his brief.
• True Will of the Electorate: Petitioner argued that he was the real winner of the 2018 BSKE with a winning margin of at least seven votes, and that even the MTC acknowledged that if the excluded ballots were considered, the outcome of the revision might change in his favor. He noted that the excluded ballots were marked as exhibits by the Revision Committee, attached to the records, and listed in the revision report.
• Liberality in Application of Rules: Petitioner argued that the case warrants relaxation or liberality in the application of the rules in the interest of substantial justice, and that the case of Coro vs. COMELEC is not on all fours with the instant case.
• Reforma Doctrine: Petitioner invoked Reforma vs. De Luna, where the Court held that the lower court erred in not examining certain ballots for the sole reason that they were not formally presented as evidence.

• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that it did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's appeal due to the latter's failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with law.
• Mandatory Requirements: The COMELEC emphasized that the required documents specified in the COMELEC Division's Order are mandatory, and petitioner's noncompliance is a valid reason for dismissal. Petitioner merely offered flimsy excuses and asked for liberality as if it were a right he is entitled to, and failed to provide any evidence to excuse his noncompliance when he filed his motion for reconsideration.
• No Entitlement to Injunctive Relief: The COMELEC argued that petitioner is not entitled to injunctive relief for failing to establish the necessary requisites for its issuance, and prayed that the petition be dismissed consistent with the Court's ruling in Coro vs. COMELEC.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: 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.
• Injunctive Relief: Whether petitioner is entitled to a TRO, status quo ante order, or a writ of preliminary injunction.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC En Banc did not commit abuse of discretion, much less grave abuse of discretion, its September 20, 2022 Resolution being duly supported by law and the records. Petitioner failed to comply with mandatory proof-of-service requirements and failed to justify his noncompliance, and the MTC correctly excluded ballots not formally offered under Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
• Injunctive Relief: No. Given the dismissal of the petition, the prayer for a TRO, status quo ante order, and/or preliminary injunction was denied as it need not be discussed.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, is limited to whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion requires a whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power; mere abuse is insufficient. Here, petitioner undisputedly failed to submit the affidavit of mailing, registry receipt, and written explanation required under Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 3, Rule 12 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. These are mandatory requirements, and noncompliance resulted in the brief being deemed not filed, warranting dismissal under Section 9(b), Rule 22. The COMELEC En Banc likewise correctly denied the motion for reconsideration, as petitioner failed to justify his noncompliance and failed to raise new issues under Section 1, Rule 19, which limits reconsideration to insufficiency of evidence or being contrary to law. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional right, and anyone invoking it must comply with the rules. Petitioner's explanation of mere inadvertence does not constitute reasonable cause justifying liberal application; liberality is an extreme exception, justifiable only when equity exists and there is no indication the violation was due to negligence or design. Even setting aside the procedural errors, the petition lacks merit: the MTC correctly excluded ballots not formally offered under Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, which categorically provides that the court shall consider no evidence that has not been formally offered. Reforma vs. De Luna, decided under R.A. No. 180 which lacked specific procedures for election cases, can no longer apply because A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC now expressly proscribes consideration of unoffered evidence. The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with due process, as it gives the opposing party the opportunity to object. The MTC uniformly excluded all unoffered ballots, including seven contested by private respondent. Petitioner's reliance on the MTC's statement that the excluded ballots might have changed the result is obiter dictum at best and speculative at worst. The invocation of the "true will of the electorate" cannot serve as a license to disregard procedural rules; noncompliance cannot be justified by mere invocation of that principle.
• Injunctive Relief: Since the dismissal of the petition was warranted, the prayer for injunctive relief need not be discussed.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — 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. Mere abuse of discretion is insufficient; it must be grave. The Court determines its existence by looking into: (1) whether the act 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. The manifest disregard of basic rules and procedures is itself what constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
• Right to Appeal as Statutory Privilege — 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.
• Liberality in Application of Procedural Rules — Liberality is not an end in itself; it must be pleaded with factual basis and 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. To merit liberality, a party must: (1) show reasonable cause justifying noncompliance with the rules; and (2) demonstrate that outright dismissal would defeat the administration of substantive justice. Mere inadvertence does not constitute reasonable cause.
• Formal Offer of Evidence — Under Section 2, Rule 13 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, the court shall consider no evidence that has not been formally offered. The rule is intertwined with the constitutional guarantee of due process because it gives the opposing party the opportunity to review the evidence and interpose objections. Evidence not formally offered has no probative value and must be excluded. The identification and marking of a document as an exhibit does not equate to formal offer; formal offer is made only when a party rests its case. The rule also facilitates appellate review, as the appellate court will not be required to review evidence not previously scrutinized by the trial court.
• True Will of the Electorate — While it has been held that technicalities should not stand in the way of the true will of the electorate in election cases, this pronouncement cannot be construed as a license for parties to disregard procedural rules altogether. Noncompliance with procedural rules in election cases cannot be justified by the mere invocation of the "true will of the electorate," and liberal application of the rules is not automatically granted by such invocation.

• "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." — This passage, quoted from National Grid Corporation of the Philippines vs. Bautista, states the controlling standard for when liberality may be granted and explains why petitioner's claim of inadvertence was rejected.
• "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." — This articulates the doctrinal basis for the formal offer requirement, linking it to due process and explaining why the MTC's exclusion of unoffered ballots was proper.
• "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 neither is the liberal application of the rules automatically be granted by such invocation." — This limits the "true will of the electorate" principle, clarifying that it does not override procedural rules in election cases.
• "The manifest disregard of basic rules and procedures is precisely what constitutes grave abuse of discretion." — This formulation inverts the typical framing: it is not strict adherence to rules that constitutes grave abuse, but their disregard.

• Reforma vs. De Luna, 104 Phil. 278 (1958) — Distinguished. Decided under R.A. No. 180, which did not provide specific procedures for the disposition of election cases, with the Rules of Court applying only by analogy or suppletorily. The Court held it can no longer squarely apply because A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC now categorically proscribes consideration of evidence not formally offered.
• Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 361 Phil. 73 (1999) — Followed. Cited to explain the expanded and exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which took away Congress's power to repeal, alter, or supplement rules on pleading, practice, and procedure, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the Court's own rules.
• National Grid Corporation of the Philippines vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 232120, September 30, 2020 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that liberality in the application of procedural rules is an extreme exception requiring factual basis and equitable justification.
• Coro vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 258307, July 26, 2022 — Referenced. Cited by the COMELEC as analogous; petitioner argued it was not on all fours with the instant case.
• Cruz vs. People, 812 Phil. 166 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the manifest disregard of basic rules and procedures constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
• Rulloda vs. COMELEC, 443 Phil. 649 (2003) — Cited for the principle that technicalities should not stand in the way of the true will of the electorate, but the Court clarified this cannot license disregard of procedural rules.

• Section 2, Rule 13, A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials) — Provides that the court shall consider no evidence that has not been formally offered, and sets the procedure for oral or written offer of evidence with immediate objection by the opposing party. Applied to uphold the MTC's exclusion of 12 of petitioner's exhibits and 7 of private respondent's exhibits that were not formally offered.
• Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Section 11 requires a written explanation when service or filing is not done personally; violation may cause the paper to be considered not filed. Section 13 requires proof of service by registered mail through an affidavit and the registry receipt. Applied to uphold the dismissal of petitioner's appeal for failure to submit these mandatory documents.
• Section 3, Rule 12, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that service, completion, and proof of service shall be made in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. Applied in conjunction with Sections 11 and 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
• Section 9(b), Rule 22, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Grounds for dismissal of appeal, including failure of the appellant to file copies of his brief within the time provided. Applied to dismiss petitioner's appeal when his brief was deemed not filed.
• Section 1, Rule 19, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Limits grounds for motion for reconsideration to insufficiency of evidence or being contrary to law. Applied to deny petitioner's motion for reconsideration for failure to show either ground.
• Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. Cited to reinforce the mandatory nature of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC as a product of the Court's exclusive rule-making power.

Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur. Caguioa, J., filed a concurring opinion elaborating on the importance of formal offer of evidence in relation to due process, distinguishing identification from formal offer of documentary evidence, and tracing the consistent application of the strict rule on formal offer through a long line of cases from Candido vs. Court of Appeals (1996) through People vs. Gabatbat (2021). Justice Caguioa emphasized that the opposing party is called upon to craft defenses only against evidence that has been offered and admitted, and that evidence not formally offered has no probative value and must be excluded.