EN BANC
|
BIENVENIDO A. CERBO, JR., ANGELO O.
MONTILLA, and GERONIMO P. ARZAGON, Petitioners, - versus
- THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, SUHARTO T. MANGUDADATU, DATU PAX Respondents. |
G.R. No. 168411 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA,* CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA,* JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Petitioners
Bienvenido A. Cerbo, Jr., Angelo O. Montilla, and Geronimo P. Arzagon were
candidates for representative, governor and vice-governor, respectively of
Sultan Kudarat in the
Respondents
Suharto T. Mangudadatu, Datu Pax S. Mangudadatu and Donato A. Ligo, on the
other hand, were petitioners’ respective opponents for the same positions.
During
the provincial canvassing of the Municipal Certificates of Canvass (COCs) by
the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC), petitioners objected to the inclusion of the COC of the
The
following day or on
The
PBOC thus proclaimed, also on
On
May 31, 2004, petitioners filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a “Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors
and Annulment of Proclamation”[2] alleging,
inter alia, that the proclamation of respondents was surreptitious, haphazard
and illegal as the same was made despite the filing with the PBOC of a notice
of appeal of its May 15, 2004 ruling and of a petition for correction of
manifest errors. They thus prayed that
the proclamation of respondents be set aside and that the Municipal Board of
Canvassers (MBOC) of Palimbang be directed to reconvene and make the
necessary corrections, and to proclaim the winning candidates based thereon.[3]
In
their Answer with Motion to Dismiss[4] filed
before the COMELEC, respondents contended that they were legally proclaimed by
the PBOC after petitioners did not appeal the PBOC May 15, 2004 order
overruling their objection to the exclusion of the Palimbang COC; and the PBOC had
denied petitioners’ petition for correction of manifest errors which ruling,
like that of May 15, 2004, petitioners did not appeal to the COMELEC.
The
COMELEC First Division, by Order of June 29, 2004,[5]
suspended the effects of the proclamation of respondents after finding that the
“documents submitted by petitioners, though convincing, cannot, without an
incisive look and investigation, warrant outright annulment of the Statement of
Votes or of the questioned Certificates of Canvass.”[6] And it resolved “to conduct an examination of
the authenticity and genuineness of the elections returns pertaining to the
Municipalities of Lutayan and Palimbang Sultan Kudarat using the COMELEC copy
to determine their reliability as valid basis of the proclamation of Private Respondents,
and thereafter render its resolution.”[7]
Parties
from both sides filed motions for reconsideration[8] of
the
The
COMELEC First Division, by Order[9] of
By
Resolution[10] dated
As shown in the records and as admitted by the
petitioners themselves, on
While
the petitioners manifested their intent to appeal, no appeal was actually
made and perfected. Because of this
failure to appeal, the ruling of the board including the COC of Palimbang in
the provincial canvass has become final.
x x x x
On the issue of correction of
manifest error in the COC and SOV of Palimbang, the same cannot prosper. First,
the errors to be corrected should pertain to tabulations of the entries. The cited
errors by the petitioners were not relative to the tabulation but to the
disparity between the number of precincts canvassed for the national and local
positions; and the difference between the sequence of precincts listed in the
local SOV and the national SOV.
Second,
in the alleged errors of the entries in the election returns and the SOV by
Precincts, the petitioners also questioned the integrity of the election
returns, thereby, putting doubt whether there were indeed errors in said
documents.
Third,
the petition for correction of manifest error was already denied by the
respondent board. The proper procedure under Section 7, Rule 27 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure should be to appeal said ruling. However, the
petitioners failed to do so. The ruling, therefore, has already attained
finality.
x
x x x
As
to the non-inclusion of the Lutayan COC
in the petition [filed before the COMELEC], petitioners argued that it was
mere oversight on the part of the petitioners. They asserted, moreover, that in
the exercise of the broad and plenary powers of the Commission, the latter can
take cognizance of the same.
We
are not convinced. Granting that the [non-]inclusion of the Lutayan COC was
just a mere oversight, still the Commission cannot pass upon the
authenticity and genuineness of the same in the instant case. Per the
aforementioned procedures, such ground should be raised before the
appropriate board of canvassers. The Commission has only an appellate
jurisdiction over the same.
Even
if this case be considered as one for correction of manifest error of the
COC/SOV of Lutayan the same must
also fail. The petitioners failed to specify the errors that are supposed to
be manifest and are to be corrected. What they alleged in their memorandum are
grounds proper for election protest or exclusion of the COC and SOV, such as
statistical improbability, abnormal turn out of voters, and other defects and
abnormalities.
Furthermore,
with respect to the herein case filed against respondent Datu Pax Mangudadatu,
the same is deemed to have been abandoned by the filing of an election protest with
the Commission by petitioner Montilla. The protest was docketed as EPC No. 2004-12. It has been held by the Supreme
Court that 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 already filed.
One
of the exceptions to the above doctrine is when the protest was filed ad
cautela. A scrutiny of the protest filed by Montilla, however, shows that EPC
NO. 2004-12 was not filed ad cautela.
x x x x[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioners
moved to reconsider the August 16, 2004 Resolution of the COMELEC First
Division, arguing that, among other things, it was erroneous to dispose the
petition on purely procedural grounds and not to treat it as an original
petition for correction of manifest errors which deserves deeper scrutiny and
decisive treatment. Petitioners also argued
that it was erroneous to consider petitioner Montilla’s filing of an election
protest as an abandonment of his petition for correction of manifest errors.
By Resolution of
Hence, this petition for certiorari which
faults the COMELEC to have
A.
. . . COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN CLOSING ITS
EYES TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IN FAULTING PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ALLEGED
PROCEDURAL LAPSES.
B.
. . . EVADED THE
PERFORMANCE OF A POSITIVE DUTY SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED BY LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF MANIFEST ERRORS,
THEREBY GRAVELY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
C.
. . . GRAVELY
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN TOLERATING THE IRREGULAR PRACTICE OF ALLOWING, WITHOUT
JUSTIFIABLE REASON, THE NON-PARTICIPATION OF A COMELEC COMMISSIONER IN THE
ISSUANCE OF ITS RESOLUTION.
D.
. . . GRAVELY
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS CERBO AND MONTILLA ARE DEEMED
TO HAVE ABANDONED THEIR PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF MANIFEST ERRORS.[13]
The petition fails.
With respect to petitioner Cerbo who
ran for the position of congressman, the COMELEC indeed had no jurisdiction
over his petition, his opponent respondent Suharto T. Mangudadatu having been proclaimed
as such. It is well settled that once a candidate is proclaimed as
representative, the opponent’s recourse is to file an election protest with the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which has the sole and exclusive
jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, and this holds true
even if there is an allegation of nullity of proclamation.[14]
With respect to petitioner Montilla, indeed, he
abandoned his petition for correction of manifest errors when he filed an election
protest against respondent Datu Pax S. Mangudadatu. Dumayas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections[15] so teaches:
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 reason for this
rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an
election protest or petition for quo
warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the
case itself and not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and
conflict of authority.[16] (Underscoring supplied)
While the filing of a protest ex abundante ad cautela[17] is not considered an abandonment of the
petition for correction of manifest errors, this Court quotes with approval the
following observations of the COMELEC
in
brushing aside as mere afterthought the claim of Montilla in a manifestation he
subsequently filed that his election protest was filed ex abundante ad cautela and
that he inadvertently omitted to indicate in its caption that it was one such:
In an effort perhaps to cure the defect, Montilla
filed a manifestation stating that it was actually [ex abundante] ad cautela
but that he inadvertently omitted to caption the protest as such. This however
should not be given weight. A reading of the allegation in the protest
reveals that there was no mention therein that it was only filed as a
precautionary measure in case his petition for correction of manifest error is
resolved adversely. There was even no mention therein that a case for
correction of manifest error and annulment between the same parties is pending
before the Commission. To top it all, petitioner Montilla even asked for
an immediate relief in his protest, i.e. an order to direct the concerned
Election Officers and Treasurers to bring all the ballot boxes and other
election paraphernalia in the protested municipalities. Verily, the protest was
not [ex abundante] ad cautela and the manifestation was a mere afterthought.[18] (Underscoring supplied)
As for the case of petitioner Arzagon,
indeed, he failed to comply with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the pertinent
provision of which reads:
RULE 27 . . . .
x x x x
Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation
Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With the Commission. – (a) The
following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed directly with the Commission:
x x x x
2) When the issue
involves the correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of
results during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election returns or
certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once, (2) two or more copies of
the election returns of one precinct,
two or more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two or
more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there had
been a mistake in the copying of figures into the statement of votes or into
the certificate of canvass, or (4) so-called returns from non-existent
precincts were included in the canvass, and such errors could not have been
discovered during the canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and
proclamation of the winning candidates had already been made.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
A petition
for correction of manifest errors filed directly with the COMELEC should thus pertain
to errors that could not have been discovered during the canvassing, despite
the exercise of due diligence. Petitioner
Arzagon, however, together with the other petitioners, initially filed a
petition for correction of manifest errors with the PBOC, evidently showing
that the errors sought to be corrected were discovered during the canvassing.
On his failure to appeal the PBOC’s
dismissal of his petition for correction of manifest errors, petitioner Arzagon
claims that the PBOC did not indicate the reasons therefor, hence, he was prevented
from appealing the same.
Even if, however, this Court may, in
the interest of justice, treat the petition for correction of manifest errors
filed with the COMELEC as an appeal from the PBOC’s verbal ruling denying petitioners’
similar petition filed with the latter, its dismissal by the COMELEC is in
order.
Specifically with respect to the Palimbang
COC, since its exclusion had earlier
been denied by the PBOC, and the denial was not appealed, it had become final. The subsequent
filing of a petition for correction of manifest errors in the Palimbang COC with
the PBOC appeared to be just an attempt
to substitute the lost appeal, which is impermissible.
With respect to petitioners’ prayer before this
Court for correction of manifest errors in the Lutayan COC, the same cannot
be considered as an appeal from the verbal denial by the PBOC of a similar
petition they earlier filed. For the petition
filed with the COMELEC does not include alleged manifest errors in the Lutayan
COC, hence, the COMELEC had no jurisdiction to rule thereon.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
(On Leave) RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO
C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
(On Leave)
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* On Leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 94-99.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Aggabao
v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 163756,
[15] G.R. No. 141952-53,
[16]
[17] Mitmug
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 106270-73,
[18] Rollo,
p. 57.