The camp of Mayor Juan T. Rodulfo has filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) questioning the Regional Trial Court’s election protest decision declaring his rival as the winner by just one vote.
The Tribune learned from a source close to the chief executive that the petition had been filed last Monday, August 10, 2026, before the 2 PM hearing set by Judge Irwin L. Peña of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 43 on the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal filed by Princess Vanessa A. Rodriguez.
The daughter of Congressman Eulogio R. Rodriguez filed the motion last Friday afternoon just hours after the Court annulled and set aside the proclamation of Mayor Rodulfo.
(Judge Peña granted the motion last Wednesday, with the recount winner assuming office this Friday, Aug. 14.)
A revision, recount and re-appreciation of the ballots for the municipality’s highest elective post that took over six (6) months to complete showed that Rodriguez obtained 7,172 votes while the incumbent got 7,171 votes.
The result is a complete reversal of the May 12, 2025 elections when Rodulfo secured a total of 7,164 votes, a margin of eight (8) compared to Rodriguez’s 7,156.
An analysis of the revision results indicated that Congressman Eulogio R. Rodriguez’s daughter had already overhauled her opponent’s winning margin as early as October 2025 when the revision of the seven pilot precincts was completed.
When Rodriguez asked at that time that she be declared the winner, the Court said the move was premature and ordered the continuation of the revision for the rest of the ballots.
It may be recalled that after losing to Rodulfo in a tight contest, the solon’s daughter filed an election protest with the RTC on May 21, 2025, asking for the recount, revision and re-appreciation of ballots in 32 clustered precincts and claiming that massive electoral fraud, anomalies, and irregularities attended the electoral exercise in the municipality.
In his answer, the mayor argued that the protest should be summarily dismissed, claiming that it was insufficient in form and substance for failing to allege a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of, and for relying on bare and sweeping allegations.
Then RTC Branch 43 Acting Presiding Judge Ritche Regala denied Rodulfo’s prayer on June 24, 2025, a week after Rodriguez manifested her intention to pursue the manual recount of all official ballots, including rejected ballots.
That same day, Rodulfo’s counsel sought the judge’s recusal from the case on the ground of manifest bias and partiality, but the RTC denied it the next day for the lack of clear and convincing evidence of actual bias.
During the initial revision, Rodriguez designated seven pilot precincts from barangays Banawang, Batalay, Binanuahan, Bote and San Roque with a total of 4,193 ballots, with her camp needed to recover at least two (2) votes to justify continuation of recount for remaining precincts.
In a key move on July 4, 2025, Rodriguez filed a motion seeking the turnover and inclusion of three ballots rejected by machines from Clustered Precinct No. 10 that were omitted from the delivered ballot box.
Four days later, the Court ordered the inclusion of the three rejected ballots in the recount.
It said that voters should not be disenfranchised for an omission they did not commit, considering that protestant had no control over the ballot box and could not be held responsible for the missing ballots.
On Aug. 11, while revision proceedings were ongoing, Mayor Rodulfo filed a petition for certiorari before COMELEC, imputing grave abuse of discretion to Judge Regala in denying Rodulfo’s prayer for summary dismissal and for refusing to inhibit himself.
After the revision of the initial seven (7) pilot precincts, the Court issued an order directing the continuation of revision of the remaining 25 clustered precincts.
Citing the report of the revision committee, it stated that Rodriguez recovered eight (8) votes while Rodulfo gained only three (3) votes, for five (5) net votes in the protestant’s favor.
Rodriguez’s additional votes came from the actual physical count (1 vote) and revision (7) including two from stray ballots and another two from rejected ballots.
On the other hand, protestee Rodulfo got only two votes from stray ballots and none during the physical count where he actually lost one vote.
In the final report on the pilot precincts, Rodriguez’s 2,476 actual votes increased to 2,483 after one objected ballot reduced the votes she gained to seven.
The incumbent secured only two additional votes to push his total for the seven precincts to 1,622.
On Aug. 29, 2025, Rodriguez asked the Court to declare her as the winning candidate based on the eight votes as she recovered but this was ruled to be premature as the recovered votes only reduced Rodulfo’s margin to only 5 votes.
The revision committees completed the recount and re-appreciation of the remaining 10,458 ballots on Jan. 16, 2026, with Rodriguez getting 4,684 votes and Rodulfo 5,542 votes.
A consolidation of the results of the two revisions resulted in the one-vote margin for Rodriguez.
| RODRIGUEZ | RODULFO | |
| Revision of 7 Pilot Precincts | ||
| Actual Votes | 2,476 | 1,622 |
| Votes Recovered | 8 | 2 |
| Votes Objected | (1) | 0 |
| Net Votes | 2,483 | 1,624 |
| Revision of Balance 25 Precincts | ||
| Actual Votes | 4,684 | 5,542 |
| Votes Recovered | 5 | 5 |
| Votes Objected | 0 | 0 |
| Net Votes | 4,689 | 5,547 |
| Total Votes as Revised | 7,172 | 7,171 |
On Feb. 11, 2026, the COMELEC First Division issued a resolution dismissing Rodulfo’s petition for certiorari, stating that it found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Acting Presiding Judge Regala and held he had properly exercised his discretion in determining the true will of the electorate.
The mayor’s camp subsequently filed motions seeking the judge’s inhibition and asking for then newly appointed RTC Branch 43 Presiding Judge Irwin Peña to assume resolution of the case.
On Feb. 24, the Court denied both motions but later agreed to have Judge Peña assume jurisdiction on the case.
In his ruling promulgated last Friday, Judge Peña stated that there was no evidence submitted to prove electoral fraud, anomalies or irregularities in the protested precincts and that no proof was presented to show members of Board of Canvassers (BOC) and the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEI) materially deviated from the exercise of their official functions.
On the final result, the Court stressed that it did not make the mathematical computation with data picked from thin air, pointing out that the revision and evaluation of the thousands of ballots were made by the protestant’s and protestee’s revisors.
“For long months, they proceeded with the revision and appreciation of ballots in order to determine the true will of the electorate,” it said,
“No electoral fraud or irregularities could be attributed to the Protestee, considering that the Protestant just made a general and sweeping statement without presenting evidence to prove its claim,” Judge Peña ruled.
“What this court found in the course of the revisions and recount was the irregularity committed in the conduct of the election, i.e., in the casting and the counting of votes made by the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) which did not reflect the true results of the elections,” he remarked.
In the decision, the Court observed that most of the objections on the marked ballots pertained to ink smudges, inkblot, and dirt, accidental and unintentional markings.
“In some instances, reports of rejected ballots were present which became the source of recoveries in this case,” it emphasized. “The same was done in order not to disenfranchise the voter of his sacred vote – for every vote counts.”
Judge Peña stated that in deciding the election protest, the Court was guided by the spirit of liberalism choosing to give spirit to the intent and will of the electorate, brushing aside the rules of technicality and strictness.
Rodriguez is represented by Sardillo Sardillo Salom Law Office from Pasig City while Rodulfo has as counsel Galvez Cardino Payumo Law Offices and Atty. Oliver T. Rodulfo.