Republic of the Philippines

9 Municipal Circuit Trial Court

th

8th Judicial Region

Branch XVIII
Bato-Matalom, Leyte

ALEJANDRO P. VILLARUBIN,
Protestant,
ELECTION CASE NO
M-HIN-23-00001- ELEC

-
- versus – FOR: ELECTION
PROTEST

PANFILA I. ALONZO,
Protestee.
x---------------------------------------------/

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Protestant by counsel, respectfully moves for the reconsideration of

the order dated 29 December, 2023:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Verification, like in most cases required by the rules of procedure, is a

formal requirement, not jurisdictional. It is simply a condition
affecting the form of the pleading and non-compliance does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective 1.Verification is
merely intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the
pleading are true and correct, and not the product of the imagination
or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith2.

On the other hand, a certification of non-forum shopping is a

certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal party in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief or in
a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith, (a) that he/she has not theretofore commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or

1 Swedish Match Philippines, Inc v. Treasurer of the City of Manila, 713 Phil. 240, 248 (2013).
2 Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., 631 Phil. 487,495-496 (2010).
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his/her knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he/she should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he/she shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
his/her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed3.

Rule 2 SEC. 11. Contents of the protest or petition. - An election

protest or petition for quo warranto shall specifically state the
following facts:

(a) the position involved;

(b) the date of proclamation; and
(c) the number of votes credited to the parties per proclamation.

An election protest shall also state:

(d) the total number of precincts of the municipality or the

barangay concerned;
(e) the protested precincts and votes of the parties in the
protested precincts per the Statement of Votes By Precinct or, if the
votes of the parties are not specified, an explanation why the votes
are not specified; and
(f) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained
of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the
protested precincts.

Rule 2 SEC. 13. Summary dismissal of election contest. - The

court shall summarily dismiss, motu proprio, an election protest,
counter-protest or petition for quo warranto on any of the following
grounds:

(a) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as required in

Section 11 hereof;

(c) The petition is filed beyond the period prescribed in these Rules;

(d) The filing fee is not paid within the period for filing the election
protest or petition for quo warranto; and

(e) In case of protest where a cash deposit is required, the cash

deposit is not paid within five days from the filing of the protest.
3 Mediserv, Inc v. Court of Appeals, 631 Phil. 282, 290 (2010).
 Rule 4 SEC. 6. of AM. No. 07-4-15-SC Amendments; limitations.
- After the expiration of the period for the filing of the election
protest, counter-protest or petition for quo warranto, substantial
amendments that broaden the scope of the action or introduce an
additional cause or causes of action may be allowed only upon leave
of court. Such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the
motion was made with intent to delay. Any amendment in matters of
form, such as a defect in the designation of the parties and other
clearly clerical or typographical errors, may be summarily corrected
by the court at any stage of the proceedings, at its initiative or on
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.

TIMELINESS OF FILING

On 09 of January, 2024, Protestant received the Order of the above

Captioned Protest dated 29 of December, 2023;

1. That on 09 of January, 2024, Protestant received the Order of

the above Captioned Protest dated 29 of December, 2023;

2. That the Protestant has 15 days from receipt of the Order

Resolution to file a motion for reconsideration;

3. That the Protestant has until 24 January, 2024, to file motion for
reconsideration;

4. That the instant Motion for Reconsideration is filed on time;

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

5. With due respect, the court committed the following errors:

A.

THE COURT ERRED INSUMMARILY DISMISSING THE

PROTEST OUTRIGHTLY WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE
PROTESTANT THAT THE COURT HAD ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OF THE CASE AND THIS ELIMINATED ANY
CHANCE FOR PROTESTANT TO FILE AN AMENDMENT
TO HIS PROTEST.

B.
 THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PROTEST
OUTRIGHTLY FOR FAILING NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
THE RULES IN WHICH THE PROTESTANT
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH AND COULD HAVE
BEEN RECTIFIED BY AN AMENDMENT.

DISCUSSION/ ARGUMENTS

A. THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED

THE PROTEST OUTRIGHTLY WITHOUT
NOTICE TO THE PROTESTANT THAT
THE COURT HAD ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
OF THE CASE AND THIS ELIMINATED
ANY CHANCE FOR THE PROTESTANT
TO FILE AN AMENDMENT TO HIS
ELECTION PROTEST.

6. The Protestant received an order of Inhibition from the

Presiding Judge Mario V. Alonzo of the 8th Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Hindang-Inopacan dated November 20, 2023
attached here for reference the copy of the order as Annex A.
From this the Protestant inquire from the Clerk of Court if it
will be allowed to file its Amended Protest since the Protestant
was already aware of the defects of the Protest; the Clerk of
Court advised to wait till a new Judge acquire jurisdiction on
the case as the court would likewise send the Protestant a
Notice thereof.

7. The Protestant waited for the notice from the court that it
likewise received the Protest, but to no avail. Since the
Protestant did not receive any Notice from the Court that it
received the Protest, thus the Protestant failed to file its
Amended Protest which only contained Formal Amendments.

8. In the interest of Justice and Fairness allow the Protestant his

chance to file an Amended Protest as his right to be informed or
Notice from the Court is his right and is protected by the
Constitution itself.

B. THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING

THE PROTEST OUTRIGHTLY
FOR FAILING NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH RULES IN WHICH
THE PROTESTANT SUBSTANTIALLY
 COMPLIED WITH AND COULD
HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED BY AN AMENDMENT.

9. The Protestant being aware of the defects on the Election

Protest was already prepared to file its Amended Protest
granted it was allowed to do so. The Protestant was unable to
receive any notice that this Honorable Court had already
acquired jurisdiction over the case because the protestant was
only able to receive notice regarding the inhibition of the
previous Presiding Judge Mario V. Alonzo and non from the
new Presiding Judge that it had acquired Jurisdiction over the
Protest attached herewith as Annex B is the Amended Protest
along with the amended Verification and Certification of Non
Forum Shopping of the Protestant.

10.Upon perusal of the Initial Protest did substantially comply

with the Rules as it alleged - the Protestant, the position he was
involved with, the specific acts being questioned, the date of the
proclamation, the number of votes credited, the testimony of
the witness and the object and documentary evidence , albeit
the Protest was disorganized an initial perusal of the Protest
indicates that the Protest Substantially complied with the Rules
and any irregularities and defects is not fatal to the Protest
granted the Protestant was allowed to file his Amended Protest.

11. Further, Rule 4 SEC. 6. of AM. No. 07-4-15-SC provides the

following rules for substantial amendments of election protests
Rule 4 SEC. 6. of AM. No. 07-4-15-SC Amendments; limitations.
- After the expiration of the period for the filing of the election
protest, counter-protest or petition for quo warranto,
substantial amendments that broaden the scope of the action or
introduce an additional cause or causes of action may be
allowed only upon leave of court. Such leave may be refused if
it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to
delay. Any amendment in matters of form, such as a defect in
the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors, may be summarily corrected by the court
at any stage of the proceedings, at its initiative or on motion,
provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.

12.The Protestant respectfully submits to this Honorable Court

that Protestant did not receive any notice from the Honorable
Court that it acquired jurisdiction over the protest. Being
unaware of this Honorable Court's acquisition of jurisdiction
 over the protest meant the Protestant could not timely file the
amended protest.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court will RECONSIDER its order dated 29
December 2023 dismissing the Protest; and allow the Protestant to file
the Amended Protest according to Rule 4 Section 6 of AM. No. 07-4-
15-SC of the RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ELECTION CONTESTS
BEFORE THE COURTS INVOLVING ELECTIVE MUNICIPAL AND
BARANGAY OFFICIALS.

Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.

Baybay City, Leyte, ( for Hindang, Leyte ) Philippines.

January 10, 2024.

ATTY.JOEPETH ANTHONY C.UY

Counsel for the Protestant
315 G.H. del Pilar St., Baybay City, Leyte
joepethanthonyuy@gmail.com
PTR No. 0146067; Baybay City
IBP OR No. 341666
May 2,2023 Admitted to the Bar
Roll of Attorneys No. 87745
Mobile No. 09326125442

Copy Furnished

Panfila I. Alonzo
Brgy.Tinago
Inopacan,Leyte