Villarosa VS Hret

Subject: Constitutional Law 1
Topic: Power of the Electoral Tribunal

Case Link: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000julydecisions.php?id=839
MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, Petitioner

vs.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Respondents
G.R. No. 143351 September 14, 2000
GR. No. 144129 September 14, 2000
FACTS:
 Villarosa and Quintos were the only candidates for the office of Representative of the Lone
Legislative District of Occidental Mindoro in the 11 May 1998 synchronized national and local
elections. On 27 May 1998 the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed VILLAROSA as
the winning candidate with a margin of 3,032 votes.
 On 4 June 1998 QUINTOS filed an election protest against VILLAROSA contesting the results
of the election in all the 882 precincts in the eleven municipalities of Occidental Mindoro on
the following grounds: (1) the ballots were misread and counted in favor of protestee; (2)
illiterate Mangyan voters voting for protestant were assisted by self-appointed assistors of
protestee, who wrote "JTV" on the ballots contrary to the instruction of said illiterate voters.
 On 6 July 1998 VILLAROSA filed her Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim. She
counter-protested the results of the election in 497 precincts.
 Protestee is wife of JOSE T. VILLAROSA, who was Representative of the District in question
for two terms, the last of which ended on June 30, 1998; in his certificate of candidacy for the
election of May 8, 1995, JOSE T. VILLAROSA wrote as his "nickname or stage name: JOE-
JTV."
 In her certificate of candidacy, Protestee wrote "JTV" as her "nickname/stage name." In her
affidavit dated April 16, 1998 sent to the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor,
Occidental Mindoro, Protestee asked that she be allowed to insert in her certificate of candidacy
the name GIRLIE such that her name should read in full as MA. AMELITA "Girlie" C.
VILLAROSA as "in every barangays [sic] of the Province of Occidental Mindoro" she is
known as "Girlie Villarosa";
 On 18 May 2000, the HRET promulgated Resolution No. 00-659 wherein it resolved to
"PROCEED with the revision of the ballots in the remaining 75%; and DIRECT the Secretariat
to continue with the revision." This resolution prompted VILLAROSA to file an Omnibus
Motion praying for (1) the suspension of the revision of the ballots pursuant to HRET
Resolution No. 00-65; (2) a categorical ruling that all ballots cast for "JTV" are valid votes for
VILLAROSA; and (3) the dismissal of the protest.
 the Tribunal ruled on May 18, 2000, by a vote of 5-4 of its members, not to count ‘JTV’ and its
variations as valid votes for Protestee Amelita C. Villarosa, the same being considered stray
ballots... and that it directed that the revision of ballots proceed with respect to the 75% counter-
protest precincts."
 On 14 June 2000, VILLAROSA filed with this Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R.
No. 143351. She alleged therein that the HRET gravely abused its discretion
ISSUE:
Whether or not the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in
jurisdiction in declaring the “JTV” votes as stray votes.
RULING:
No. The HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in
jurisdiction in declaring the “JTV” votes as stray votes.
…It should not be forgotten that under the Constitution the HRET is “the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of
Subject: Constitutional Law 1
Topic: Power of the Electoral Tribunal
Case Link: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000julydecisions.php?id=839
Representatives. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
If the HRET had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, then the aggrieved party may come to us for redress by way of a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure even if by the HRET Rules of Procedure
the assailed judgment has become final and the prevailing party has taken his oath of office or assumed
position. The HRET rule on finality of its judgment cannot divest the Supreme Court of its power and
duty under Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution to determine in a proper case whether there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of HRET.
Explaining this duty of the courts, then Commissioner Roberto R. Concepcion, former Chief
Justice, stated:
Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the
government as well as those of its offices. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question
whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess
of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on
matters of this nature.
The facts established in this case, strengthened by the admission of the parties at the preliminary
conference conducted by the HRET on 6 August 1998 and during the oral argument before the Court
on 15 August 2000, lead us to no other conclusion than that the use of by VILLAROSA of “JTV” as
her nickname or stage name, as indicated in her Certificate of Candidacy, was a clever ruse or ploy to
make a mockery of the election process. Therefore, the HRET did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion in ruling that “JTV” votes should not be counted in favor of VILLAROSA. They are stray
votes…
WHEREFORE, the petitions in these cases are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Villarosa VS Hret

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villarosa VS Hret

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villarosa VS Hret

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Power of the Electoral Tribunal

MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, Petitioner

You might also like