De Castro vs.

COMELEC (1997)

FACTS:
Petitioner, Jimmy De Castro was proclaimed Mayor of Gloria, Oriental Mindoro during
the May 8, 1995 elections. In the same elections, private respondent Amando Medrano was
proclaimed Vice-Mayor of the same municipality. On May 19, 1995, petitioners rival
candidate, the late Nicolas M. Jamilla, filed an election protest before the Regional Trial
Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. During the pendency of said contest, Jamilla died.
Four days after such death, the trial court dismissed the election protest ruling as it did that
[a]s this case is personal, the death of the protestant extinguishes the case itself. The trial
court denied private respondents Omnibus Petition/Motion and stubbornly held that an
election protest being personal to the protestant, is ipso facto terminated by the latters
death. Then, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) assailing the trial court orders as having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion. COMELEC granted the petition and ruled that an election
contest involves both the private interests of the rival candidates and the public interest in
the final determination of the real choice of the electorate, and for this reason, an election
contest necessarily survives the death of the protestant or the protestee.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an election protest is a personal action extinguished upon the death
of the real party in interest.

RATIO:
The Court agrees with the COMELEC that an election contest involves both the
private interests of the rival candidates and the public interest in the final determination of
the real choice of the electorate, and for this reason, an election contest necessarily survives
the death of the protestant or the protestee. It is true that a public office is personal to the
public officer and is not a property transmissible to his heirs upon death. The death of the
protestant, as in this case, neither constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor
ousts the trial court of its jurisdiction to decide the election contest. The asseveration of
petitioner that private respondent is not a real party in interest entitled to be substituted in
the election protest in place of the late Jamilla, is utterly without legal basis. The filing by
private respondent of his Omnibus Petition/Motion on January 15, 1996, well within a
period of thirty days from December 19, 1995 when Jamillas counsel informed the trial
court of Jamillas death, was in compliance with Section 17, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of
Court. Since the Rules of Court, though not generally applicable to election cases, may
however be applied by analogy or in a suppletory character, private respondent was correct
to rely thereon.