Garcia vs HRET

E. Garcia, et. Al vs HRET GR. No. 134792 12 August 1999 Facts: rd

Harry Angpin was elected as the representative for the 3  district of Manila. However, there has been a petition for quo warranto filed before the HRET against Congress man Harry Angping. Petitioners Petitioners questioned the eligibility of Congressman Angping to hold office in the House of Representatives claiming that the latter was not a natural born citizen of the Philippines, which is a constitutional requirement. Upon the petitioner’s filing o f their petition, they have paid the required 5,000php filing fee. However, HRET issued a resolution dismissing the petition for failure to pay 5,000 php as deposit. The petitioners then filed the cash deposit and filed for a motion for reconsideration with a receipt attached. However, it was denied. Issue: Whether or not the HRET has committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for quo warranto of petitioners even after the payment of deposit fee Ruling No, the HRET did not commit grave abuse in dismissing the petition. The HRET has a judgment call and has the authority to implement its rules. As long as the exercise of such discretion is based on a wellfounded factual and legal basis, as in this case, no abuse of discretion can be imputed to the Tribunal. In view of the delicate nature of the charge against Congressman Angpin, the observance of the HRET Rules of Procedure must be taken seriously if they are to obtain their objective. The petitioners are duty bound to know and are expected to properly comply with the procedural requirements laid down by the tribunal without being formally orered to do so. Imperative justice requires the proper observance of technicalities technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper and swift dispensation.