EN BANC
RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARLES, PROVINCE OF ILOILO and FELIPE BERNAL, JR., respondents.
FACTS : Petitioner Dumayas,
Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates for the position of mayor
in Carles, Iloilo last 11 May 1998 synchronized elections.
During the canvassing on 13
May 1998, election returns for precinct nos. 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of
Barangay Pantalan was protested for inclusion in the canvass before the
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC for brevity) by petitioner-appellant Dumayas
Jr. The grounds relied upon for their exclusion are all the same- that is,
"violation of Secs. 234, 235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other
election laws; acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts
prohibited by law."
On the other hand, respondent
Bernal, Jr. in vehemently denying the allegations of petitioner, submitted
joint affidavits of the members of the different Boards of Election Inspectors
for precinct nos. 61A, 62A and 63A/64A.
Nody Mahilum and PO3 Gilbert
Sorongon also executed a joint affidavit denying the accusations of Dumayas,
Jr. and his watchers stating therein that they only entered their respective
precinct-polling place in order to exercise their right of suffrage and that
the election in the three precincts of Barangay Pantalan was orderly, peaceful,
and honest which (sic) truly reflects the will of the electorate.
In the afternoon of May 14,
1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioner’s objection to the
inclusion of the contested returns and proceeded with the canvass. Petitioner
filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998. The appeal was given
due course by the COMELEC Second Division3 which rendered a resolution dated
August 4, 1998,
On August 10, 1998, private
respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for reconsideration of the
above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
Pending resolution of the
motion for reconsideration and pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC Second
Division, Election Officer Rolando Dalen set the reconvening of the MBC on
August 13, 1998, for the continuation of canvass proceedings and proclamation
of winning candidates for Vice-Mayor and Municipal Councilors of Carles,
Iloilo. No winner for the position of Mayor was proclaimed since private
respondent was able to present a copy of his motion for reconsideration before
the MBC
On August 17, 1998, despite
presentation of the August 12, 1998 order, petitioner was proclaimed winner of
the election after excluding from the canvass the election returns from the
three contested precincts in accordance with the COMELEC Second Division
Resolution.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998,
the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo warranto5
against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 66.
Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141, said petition included respondent
Bernal as one of the petitioners together with Vice-Mayor Betita.
On September 18, 1998,
petitioner filed before the COMELEC en banc a motion to expunge respondent
Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and motion to declare petitioner’s
proclamation void ab initio, on the ground that respondent Bernal should be
deemed to have abandoned said motions by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No.
98-141 which, according to petitioner, is a formal election protest via quo
warranto brought before the regular courts.
In a resolution dated August
24, 1999 but promulgated on March 2, 2000, the COMELEC en banc denied
petitioner’s motion to expunge
On March 13, 2000, respondent
Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by the newly-constituted Municipal Board of
Canvassers as the duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality of Carles, thereby
unseating petitioner Dumayas.
Hence, this instant special
civil action
ISSUE : WON the COMELEC err in
ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvassing of
ballots
HELD : As a general rule, the
filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the
subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the
abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority
to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his
proclamation
the general rule is not
absolute. It admits of certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of
canvassers was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper
remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an
election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of a
quo warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without
prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad cautelam; and (e)
the proclamation was null and void.
Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its
discretion, when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal’s motion for
reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner’s proclamation as void
ab initio. Note that under the allegations cited above, the determination of
Betita’s right would ultimately hinge on the validity of petitioner’s
proclamation in the first place. To repeat, the "quo warranto"
petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition to annul petitioner’s proclamation
over which COMELEC exercises original exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, it
could not be deemed as a proper remedy in favor of respondent Bernal, Jr. even
if his name was included in the title of said petition.
Well-entrenched is the rule
that findings of fact by the COMELEC, or any other administrative agency
exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on this
Court.18 In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the
COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns which
are on their face regular and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues
the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of
election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper remedy is a regular
election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.1
In the present case,
petitioner barely alleged that the preparation of said returns was attended by
threats, duress, intimidation or coercion without offering any proof, other
than the affidavits mentioned above, that these had affected the regularity or
genuineness of the contested returns. Absent any evidence appearing on the face
of the returns that they are indeed spurious, manufactured or tampered with,
the election irregularities cited by petitioner would require the reception of
evidence aliunde which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy such as
the one initiated by petitioner. Returns can not be excluded on mere allegation
that the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their
face, appear regular and without any physical signs of tampering, alteration or
other similar vice. If there had been sham voting or minimal voting which was
made to appear as normal through falsification of the election returns, such
grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a
pre-proclamation controversy.20
In sum, we hold that the
COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the
ruling of its Second Division. The appeal brought by petitioner from the order
of inclusion issued by the MBC should have been dismissed by that Division
right away, since the grounds for exclusion relied upon by petitioner are not
proper in a pre-proclamation case, which is summary in nature
No comments:
Post a Comment