G.R. No. L-54362. February 28, 1985.
QUINTIN C. SIM, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO D. OFIANA and PEDRO N. SALES, respondents.

FACTS

In the January 30, 1980 election for Mayor of Manaoag, Pangasinan, petitioner Quintin C. Sim received the greater number of votes and was proclaimed duly elected on February 3, 1980. On February 25, 1980, losing candidate Pedro N. Sales filed a petition for quo warranto with the Court of First Instance, seeking to oust Sim on the ground of alleged Chinese citizenship. Sim moved to dismiss, arguing that Sales lacked personality to sue as his certificate of candidacy was not given due course by the COMELEC, and that the petition was filed beyond the ten-day period from proclamation prescribed by the Election Code.
The COMELEC had earlier, on February 12, 1980, denied a separate petition by Sales to disqualify Sim, citing lack of evidence. However, the COMELEC resolution explicitly stated that the denial was “without prejudice to the filing by herein petitioner, if so desired, quo warranto proceedings.” Sales received notice of this resolution on February 14, 1980.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the quo warranto petition despite its filing 22 days after Sim’s proclamation, and despite the COMELEC’s prior resolution on the disqualification issue.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed Sim’s petition, upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction. The legal logic is twofold. First, the doctrine of the “law of the case” applies. The COMELEC, in its February 12 resolution, expressly permitted Sales to institute quo warranto proceedings. This directive became the controlling legal rule between the parties on this procedural matter, and Sim could not later contest the propriety of the action which the COMELEC itself had sanctioned.
Second, the filing period was not fatally violated. While the Election Code required filing within ten days after proclamation, technicalities should not override substantial justice. Sales acted on the COMELEC’s directive, filing his petition on February 25, which was effectively within one day from the expiration of a reasonable period computed from his receipt of the COMELEC resolution on February 14. The Court noted that in prior cases, it had granted longer filing periods, and a one-day delay, under these equitable circumstances, was not prejudicial. The citizenship issue, being a substantive question, was properly left for a full judicial hearing in the quo warranto proceeding.