Batoy vs. Regional Trial Court

A certificate of non-forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory; its belated submission after the reglementary period for filing an election protest does not constitute substantial compliance and warrants dismissal of the protest. The proper remedy from an MCTC order dismissing an election protest is an appeal to the COMELEC under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, not a petition for certiorari with the RTC. An erroneous filing with the RTC does not toll the period to perfect an appeal to the COMELEC.

Petitioner Melody B. Batoy and private respondent Jeanfree Sarmiento were candidates for the position of Barangay Chairman in Barangay Dasitam, Baclayon, Bohol, during the May 6, 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections. Sarmiento won by a margin of one vote. Batoy filed an election protest with the 13th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Loay-Alburquerque-Baclayon, but omitted the certification against forum shopping required by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.

• The Election and Protest: On May 6, 1996, during the Sangguniang Kabataan elections, private respondent Jeanfree Sarmiento obtained twenty votes to petitioner Melody Batoy’s nineteen votes for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Dasitam, Baclayon, Bohol. Sarmiento was proclaimed the duly elected SK Chairman. On May 9, 1996, petitioner filed an election protest with the 13th MCTC, alleging that the Board of Election Tellers failed to appreciate two ballots in her favor. The protest did not contain a certification of non-forum shopping required by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.

• Motion to Dismiss and Belated Submission: Private respondent moved to dismiss the protest on grounds that it stated no cause of action and did not comply with the anti-forum shopping requirement. On May 20, 1996, petitioner submitted the certification and opposed the motion, characterizing the omission as a technical deficiency that had been cured. The ten-day reglementary period for filing the election protest had already expired.

• MCTC Orders: The MCTC granted the motion to dismiss in an Order dated May 23, 1996. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied; she received the denial order on June 4, 1996.

• RTC Petition: Instead of appealing to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the RTC on June 20, 1996, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MCTC. Private respondent argued that petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy via appeal to the COMELEC and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. The RTC dismissed the petition on September 11, 1996, ruling that (a) it had no jurisdiction over the petition, (b) the MCTC committed no grave abuse of discretion, and (c) petitioner’s proper remedy was an appeal to the COMELEC. The RTC also denied reconsideration.

• Substantial Compliance with Certification Requirement: Petitioner argued that her belated filing of the certificate of non-forum shopping on May 20, 1996 constituted substantial compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94, and the MCTC should have proceeded to resolve the election protest on the merits, consistent with Loyola vs. Court of Appeals.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner maintained that the MCTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the protest; therefore, the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 with the RTC, not an appeal to the COMELEC.

• Mandatory Certification Requirement: Private respondent countered that the election protest was fatally defective for failure to include the mandatory certificate of non-forum shopping, and that the belated submission did not cure the defect.

• Availability of Appeal: Respondent argued that petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law—an appeal to the COMELEC under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824—and that resort to certiorari before the RTC was improper. Respondent further contended that the MCTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion.

• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: Whether the MCTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the election protest despite petitioner’s belated submission of the certificate of non-forum shopping.

• Proper Remedy: Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy was an appeal to the COMELEC and that it had no jurisdiction.

• Mootness: Whether the petition had become moot and academic due to the expiration of the term of office of the contested position.

• Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: The MCTC committed no grave abuse of discretion. The requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory. Subsequent compliance does not excuse initial failure to attach the certificate; the rule admits of exceptions only upon a showing of special circumstances or compelling reasons making strict application unjustified. Petitioner’s excuse—that she merely overlooked the deficiency—was patently flimsy and unacceptable. Moreover, the certificate was filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period for filing an election protest, and the late submission did not retroactively cure the jurisdictional defect; Loyola was distinguished because there the certificate was filed within the ten-day period.

• Proper Remedy: The RTC correctly dismissed the petition for lack of appellate jurisdiction. COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, Section 49 vests the COMELEC with appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MTC/MCTCs in election protest cases. The order of dismissal is a final order subject to appeal to the COMELEC. Petitioner’s resort to certiorari with the RTC was erroneous and did not toll the period to perfect an appeal. The MCTC’s dismissal order therefore became final and executory.

• Mootness: The term of office of the officials elected in the May 6, 1996 SK elections had long expired, rendering the petition moot and academic.

• Mandatory Nature of the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping — The certification required by Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory. Its subsequent filing does not excuse non-compliance at the time of filing the initiatory pleading. Only special circumstances or compelling reasons may justify relaxation of the rule; mere oversight is insufficient. In election protests, the certificate must be filed within the reglementary period for filing the protest; a belated submission after the deadline does not constitute substantial compliance.

• Proper Remedy from MCTC Dismissal of Election Protest — Under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, Section 49, the COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over decisions and final orders of the MTC/MCTC in election protests. The erroneous filing of a petition for certiorari with the RTC does not toll the period to appeal to the COMELEC. The dismissal order becomes final and executory upon failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period.

• Moot and Academic Principle — A petition challenging an election protest becomes moot and academic upon the expiration of the term of office of the contested position, as no practical relief can be granted.

• ”The requirement under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 for a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. The subsequent compliance with said requirement does not excuse a party’s failure to comply therewith in the first instance.” — This passage establishes the strict application of the anti-forum shopping rule.

• ”The ten-day period for her to file her defective election protest was not suspended when she filed her election protest on May 9, 1996. The submission by petitioner of the requisite certificate after the reglementary ten-day period for the filing of an election protest did not operate as a substantial compliance with the Circular.” — The Court clarifies that the period to file is not interrupted by a defective pleading, and late submission of a mandatory attachment cannot retroactively validate the protest.

• ”The erroneous filing by the petitioner of her petition with the RTC did not toll the running of the period for petitioner to perfect her appeal to the COMELEC.” — This underscores that an incorrect remedial choice does not interrupt the appeal period.

• Loyola vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 477 (1995) — Distinguished. In Loyola, the certificate of non-forum shopping was submitted within the ten-day period for filing an election protest; here, petitioner submitted it after the period had lapsed. The factual difference rendered the ruling inapplicable.

• Melo vs. Court of Appeals, 318 SCRA 94 (1999) — Followed. Reiterated the mandatory nature of the certificate of non-forum shopping and that subsequent compliance does not excuse initial failure unless special circumstances exist.

• Tomarong vs. Lubguban, 269 SCRA 624 (1997) — Cited to support the principle that submission of the certificate after the reglementary period does not constitute substantial compliance.

• Caluoag vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 405 (1997) — Cited for the rule that erroneous filing of a pleading with a court that lacks jurisdiction does not toll the running of the reglementary period to appeal.

• Trinidad vs. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175 (1999) — Cited for the mootness doctrine where the term of office of the contested position has expired.

• Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 — Mandates the submission of a certificate of non-forum shopping in initiatory pleadings. Applied to dismiss the election protest for the petitioner’s failure to attach the certificate upon filing and because belated compliance occurred after the protest period lapsed.

• COMELEC Resolution No. 2824, Section 49 — Vests original jurisdiction over barangay election protests in the MTC/MCTC and grants the COMELEC en banc appellate jurisdiction over decisions of those courts. Applied to hold that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the certiorari petition, and that the proper remedy was an appeal to the COMELEC.

Bellosillo, J. (Chairman), Mendoza, J., Quisumbing, J., and Austria-Martinez, J.