EN BANC
|
ATTY. GABRIEL B. OCTAVA,
Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 166105 |
|
- versus - COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, composed of MANUEL A. BARCELONA, JR., Commissioner Ponente,
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Chairman, RUFINO S. B. JAVIER, Commissioner,
RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, Commissioner, VIRGILIO O. GARCILLANO, Commissioner,
MEHOL K. SADAIN, Commissioner, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., Commissioner, THE
CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE, composed of MYRNA S.
UMANDAL, Chairman, RHODORA Y. ADVIENTO, Vice-Chairman, LODIVILLA P. SILAN,
Member-Secretary, and JOSEFO BITONES LUBIGAN,
Respondents. |
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR.,* AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolutions
dated
The facts as found by the COMELEC are as follows:
A petition was filed by private respondent Josefo B. Lubigan against the
City Board of Canvassers (CBOC) of
Lubigan sought (1) to correct the statements of votes (SOVs) by precinct
prepared by the CBOC of Trece Martires City, and (2) to nullify and set aside the
proclamation of petitioner as the 10th duly elected Sangguniang
Panlungsod member. Lubigan alleged that during the canvass proceedings, the
CBOC erred in the preparation of the SOVs with respect to the votes that he
garnered. According to him, instead of counting
7,740 votes in his favor, he was merely credited with 7,540 votes. He claimed that had he been credited with the
correct number of votes, he should have been the 10th Sangguniang
Panlungsod member instead of petitioner.
Instead, it was petitioner who was credited with 7,656 votes and was
proclaimed by the CBOC.
In its answer to the COMELEC, the CBOC admitted that there was indeed an
error in the tabulation of the total number of votes garnered by petitioner and
Lubigan. It was only during the delivery
of the ballot boxes containing the election returns and upon double-checking
that it discovered the discrepancy in the SOVs.[3]
Petitioner, however, contended that the CBOC did not commit any error in
the computation of votes, especially those pertaining to the votes of Lubigan. The records of the CBOC did not show manifest
errors. If there were, these would have been noted in the minutes of the proceedings
and ruled upon by the CBOC. Petitioner
further alleged that since he was already proclaimed, any petition in the nature
of a pre-proclamation controversy was no longer available. The appropriate remedy should either be an
election protest or a quo warranto proceeding to be filed in the proper
court having jurisdiction.[4]
The COMELEC ruled:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the
foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to GRANT
the instant petition. The
proclamation of private respondent Gabriel B. Octava as the 10th
Sangguniang Panlungsod Member for Trece Martires City, Cavite is hereby ANNULLED
and SET ASIDE.
ACCORDINGLY, the City Board of
Canvassers of Trece Martires City, Cavite is hereby DIRECTED to RECONVENE
and EFFECT the necessary corrections in the Statement of Votes and
forthwith PROCLAIM the rightful winner for the 10th
Sangguniang Panlungsod Member for Trece Martires City, Cavite during the May
10, 2004 National and Local Elections.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was
likewise denied by the COMELEC.[6]
Hence, the instant petition.
The sole issue raised in the petitioner’s Memorandum[7]
is:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS HAS ACTED
WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ANNULLING THE PROCLAMATION OF
PETITIONER HEREIN AS THE 10TH SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD MEMBER FOR
TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE, AND IN DIRECTING THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF
TRECE MARTIRES CITY TO RECONVENE AND EFFECT THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS IN THE
STATEMENT OF VOTES AND FORTHWITH PROCLAIM RESPONDENT HEREIN JOSEFO BITONES
LUBIGAN THE RIGHTFUL WINNER FOR THE 10TH SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD
MEMBER FOR TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE, DURING THE MAY 10, 2004 NATIONAL AND
LOCAL [ELECTIONS].[8]
Simply put, we must resolve whether there was grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of COMELEC
in its assailed Resolutions.
Petitioner states that he was denied due process when he was not
furnished a copy of the answer of the CBOC before the COMELEC.[9] He says that had he been furnished such,
he could have raised the discrepancy[10] between
the allegation of Lubigan that the latter objected to the results of the tally,
and the claim of the CBOC that Lubigan had made no objection. Petitioner suggests
that it was rather strange that the COMELEC did not bother to require the CBOC
to furnish him a copy of their answer to satisfy the substantive and procedural
requirements of the law.
Lubigan counters that a party cannot successfully invoke deprivation of
due process if he was accorded the opportunity of a hearing through either oral
arguments or pleadings.[11]
We agree with Lubigan’s submission.
The essence of due process is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to
be heard and to submit any evidence in support of his defense.[12] Where opportunity to be heard, either through
oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[13] What is offensive to due process is the
denial of the opportunity to be heard.[14]
In Adamson & Adamson,
Inc. v. Amores,[15] we held:
While administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements they are bound by law and practice to observe the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them. However, the standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain latitude as long as the element of fairness is not ignored. Hence, there is no denial of due process where records show that hearings were held with prior notice to adverse parties. But even in the absence of previous notice, there is no denial of procedural due process as long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard.[16]
In this case, petitioner filed an answer to the petition before the COMELEC
after summons was duly issued to him.[17] Patently,
the requirements of due process were met by the COMELEC, as the parties were
given enough opportunity to be heard.
Petitioner further states that the COMELEC erred in
allowing Lubigan to file his petition 15 days after the proclamation of petitioner
as the 10th member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Section 5 (b),[20] Rule 27 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari must be
filed not later than five days following the date of proclamation. However, Section
4, Rule 1 of the same Rules allows suspension of the rules. It states:
Sec. 4. Suspension of the Rules. – In the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
Since the COMELEC has the power to suspend its rules and the mandate to
determine the true victor in an electoral contest, we hold that it committed no
grave abuse of discretion when it allowed Lubigan to file his petition 15 days
after petitioner’s proclamation.
The COMELEC has the primary duty to
ascertain by all feasible means the will of the electorate in an election case.[21] Towards that end, we have consistently
employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to the end
that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be
defeated by mere technical objections.[22]
WHEREFORE, finding
no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC, we DENY the
instant petition for certiorari for lack of merit. The Resolutions dated
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|||
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|||
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|||
|
(On leave) ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|||
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|||
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|||
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been 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. 25-30.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Busuego
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95326,
[13] Gacutana-Fraile
v. Domingo, G.R. No. 138518, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 414, 423, citing Alba
v. Nitorreda, G.R. No. 120223, March 13, 1996, 254 SCRA 753, 763-764.
[14] Garments
and Textile Export Board v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 114711 &
115889,
[15] No. L-58292,
[16]
[17] Rollo, p. 23.
[18]
[19]
[20] Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With the Commission. – …
x x x x
(b) If the petition involves the illegal composition or proceedings of the board…it must be filed immediately when the board begins to act as such, or at the time of the appointment of the member whose capacity to sit as such is objected to if it comes after the canvassing of the board, or immediately at the point where the proceedings are or begin to be illegal.
If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation and must implead all candidates who may be adversely affected thereby.
[21] Dela Llana v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No 152080,
[22] Balajonda v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 166032,