Scribd
Upload
309 views4 pages

ROBLES vs. House of The Representatives Electoral Tribunal 181 SCRA 780 Facts

This case involves an election protest filed by Romeo Santos challenging Virgilio Robles' proclamation as the winner of the congressional seat in the 1st district of Caloocan City. Santos later filed a motion to withdraw his contest, but then filed an urgent motion to recall that previous motion. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere filing of a motion to withdraw does not automatically divest the tribunal of jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction continues until the case is terminated. The tribunal retains authority to grant or deny motions, and withdrawal only becomes effective once granted. The petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Gerolyn Del Pilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
309 views4 pages

ROBLES vs. House of The Representatives Electoral Tribunal 181 SCRA 780 Facts

This case involves an election protest filed by Romeo Santos challenging Virgilio Robles' proclamation as the winner of the congressional seat in the 1st district of Caloocan City. Santos later filed a motion to withdraw his contest, but then filed an urgent motion to recall that previous motion. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere filing of a motion to withdraw does not automatically divest the tribunal of jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction continues until the case is terminated. The tribunal retains authority to grant or deny motions, and withdrawal only becomes effective once granted. The petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Gerolyn Del Pilar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

ROBLES vs.

House of the Representatives Electoral Tribunal


181 SCRA 780

FACTS:

Petitioner Virgilio Robles and private respondent Romeo Santos werecandidates for the position
of Congressman of the 1st district of Caloocan Cityin the last May 11, 1987 congressional elections.
Petitioner Robles wasproclaimed the winner on December 23, 1987. Rep. Virgilio Robles elected to1stDist.
of Caloocan. Romeo Santos then filed an elec. contest w/ HRET(electoral fraud & irregularities) & called
for re-counting / re-appreciation ofvotes. Santos, filed Motion to Withdraw Contest but later filed Urgent
Motionto Recall/Disregard his Previous Motion. 1stMotion not acted upon by HRET,2ndMotion granted.
Robles claimed that the 1stmotion divested HRET ofjurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether HRET acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse ofdiscretion thus giving the
Supreme Jurisdiction over the subject matter

RULING

The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaininguncontested precincts,
without any action on the part of respondent tribunal,does not by itself divest the tribunal of its
jurisdiction over the case. It is anestablished doctrine that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost at the
instanceof the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Certainly, theTribunal retains the
authority to grant or deny the Motion, and the withdrawalbecomes effective only when the Motion is
granted. To hold otherwise wouldpermit a party to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction already acquired.
Petitionis dismissed.

You might also like