EN BANC
LUISITO O. CUMIGAD, G.R. No. 167314
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and Promulgated:
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS
OF GAMU, ISABELA,
Respondents.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The
Case
Before the Court is a petition for
certiorari[1]
assailing the En Banc Resolution[2]
dated
The Facts
Petitioner Luisito
O. Cumigad (petitioner) ran for a seat in the Sangguniang Bayan of Gamu, Isabela during the
On
The COMELEC docketed the MBOC
memorandum as SPC No. 04-273 and set it for hearing on
The records show that on 15 May 2004,
or shortly before the MBOC filed its memorandum, Gamu
parish priest Amadeo Vinasoy
(Fr. Vinasoy) issued to Marlo
T. Angangan (Angangan), one
of the losing candidates, a Certification[5]
stating that Angangan ranked seventh among the candidates
for municipal councilor according to the PPCRV count, “contrary to the result x
x x as proclaimed by the
[MBOC].” On
On
On
In its Resolution[8]
dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition to correct manifest errors in the statement
of votes is hereby GRANTED; the Board of Canvassers of Gamu,
Isabela is hereby ORDERED to RECONVENE and correct
the manifest errors in the statement of votes in accordance with the figures in
the election returns; furthermore, the Board is also DIRECTED to NOTIFY all the
parties that will be affected by the correction of the manifest errors, and
REQUIRE them to be present during the correction of the manifest errors.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration
of the resolution, reiterating that there was no manifest error even assuming
that the MBOC’s count differed from those of the
NAMFREL and PPCRV. Petitioner later filed an “addendum” to his motion for
reconsideration, citing supervening events which allegedly led Baggao and Sumaoang, the two
members of the MBOC who signed the memorandum with Manuel, to execute
affidavits pertaining to the matter. Their separate but strikingly similar
affidavits dated
On
On
On
On
Meanwhile, the COMELEC on 28 April
2005 issued Minute Resolution No. 05-0436 constituting a special Municipal
Board of Canvassers (special MBOC) to convene on 20 May 2005 at the COMELEC
office in Intramuros, Manila and implement the
assailed resolutions. On
On the strength of his proclamation
and oath of office, Angangan reported to the Sangguniang Bayan on
The Ruling of the COMELEC
The COMELEC En Banc found that
the MBOC committed manifest errors in the transfer of entries from the election
returns to the Statement of Votes. According to the COMELEC, it was clear upon
inspection of the election returns from Precinct Numbers 50A, 51A, 53A, 54A,
55A, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 65A that the votes received by petitioner as indicated
in the Statement of Votes was higher by 150 votes than what he actually
received. The COMELEC considered the 150 votes deductible from petitioner’s
total of 3,539 votes as stated in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and
Proclamation. With the COMELEC’s recomputation,
Angangan ranked eighth with 3,445 votes, while
petitioner ranked ninth with 3,389 votes.
The COMELEC resolution explained:
x x x x
We
conducted our own comparison of the votes of [petitioner] as indicated in the
Election Returns and of his votes found in the Statement of Votes by Precincts
alleged by the MBOC as containing manifest errors, using the COMELEC copy of
the said documents. x x x
x x x x
Clearly as shown above, there are
manifest errors committed which affected the outcome or result of the elections
considering that in the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation, it is
stated that [petitioner] ranked number six (6) with 3,539 votes but with the
implementation of the correction, he only ranked number nine (9) with 3,389
votes.
x x x x
Finally, the proclamation of
[petitioner] cannot be considered valid because it was based on faulty
tabulation. x x x[13]
After promulgation of the resolution,
Manuel filed before the COMELEC a Very Urgent Motion To Use Other Authentic
Copies of the Election Returns and Statement of Votes, claiming unavailability
of the copies of election returns kept by the Election Officer of Gamu and praying that the COMELEC authorize the MBOC to use
all other authentic copies available of the election returns of the precincts
where there were errors in tabulation. Manuel also prayed that the winning
candidate be proclaimed after corrections have been made and that the COMELEC
order Baggao and Sumaoang
to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for obstructing the
implementation of the assailed resolutions. Manuel further prayed that proper
investigation be conducted on the disappearance of 71 election returns.
Acting on Manuel’s urgent motion, the
COMELEC issued an Order directing the
MBOC to (1) reconvene, upon prior notice to the parties, candidates, and
persons concerned; (2) implement the corrections using the COMELEC’s
copy of the election returns and Statement of Votes for Precinct Numbers 50A,
51A, 53A, 54A, 55A, 56A, 56B, 57A, and 65A; and (3) proclaim the winning
candidates based on the corrected results.
Hence, this petition.
The Issues
For resolution are the following
issues:
1.
Whether the COMELEC
committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in giving due course to the MBOC memorandum;
2.
Whether the COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the MBOC to reconvene and make corrections to the
Statement of Votes; and
3.
Whether Angangan may intervene in the
proceedings.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition must fail.
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
in giving due course
to the MBOC memorandum
Petitioner raises the issue of the
propriety of the COMELEC’s decision to give due
course to the MBOC memorandum. Petitioner’s argument is three-fold.
First, petitioner alleges that the
MBOC memorandum cited “alleged manifest errors in the proclamation” of the
winning candidates, a matter not recognized by any provision of the 1993
COMELEC Rules of Procedure (COMELEC Rules). Section 4, Rule 27 of the COMELEC
Rules speaks only of “correction of manifest errors.” Petitioner argues that correction of manifest errors does not
refer to errors in proclamation. Petitioner argues that nowhere in the COMELEC
Rules is there a basis to treat the MBC memorandum as a petition to correct
manifest errors.
Second, petitioner asserts that even
if the COMELEC were correct in treating the MBOC memorandum as a petition to
correct manifest errors, still the COMELEC should have dismissed the petition
outright for having been filed out of time. Under Section 5, Rule 27 of the
COMELEC Rules, a pre-proclamation controversy involving a petition for
correction of manifest errors “must be filed not later than five days following
the date of proclamation x x x.”
Petitioner was proclaimed as a member of the Sangguniang
Bayan on
Third, petitioner submits that the
MBOC could not motu proprio
file a petition for correction before the COMELEC because such may be brought
only by a “candidate, any registered political party, organization or coalition
of political parties before the board of canvassers or directly with the
[COMELEC]” based on Section 1, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules.
Petitioner’s arguments do not
persuade.
Admittedly, the MBOC memorandum
mentions the variance in the results the MBOC obtained compared to those of the
NAMFREL and PPCRV. The MBOC memorandum also cites “errors in proclamation” of
the winning candidates. This imprecision in the averments does not, however,
muddle the clear intent of the MBOC to report manifest errors in the tabulation
of votes for the members of the Sangguniang Bayan. The contents of the MBOC’s
Reply dated
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 the 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, or two or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there had been a mistake in the copying of the 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 (Emphasis supplied)
We likewise reject petitioner’s
arguments that the MBOC could not have motu proprio filed
a petition for correction, and that the petition was, at any rate, filed out of
time. Indeed, the MBOC is expressly allowed to motu
proprio correct manifest errors before
proclamation under Section 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules thus:
Sec.
7. Correction of errors in tabulation or tallying of results by the Board of
Canvassers. — (a) Where it is clearly shown before proclamation that manifest
errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying of election returns, or
certificates of canvass, during the canvassing as where x x
x (3) there was a mistake in the adding or copying of
the figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by
precinct, x x x the board
may motu proprio,
or upon verified petition by any candidate, political party, organization or
coalition of political parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the
errors committed.
x x x x
We held in Castromayor v. COMELEC[14]
and Torres v. COMELEC[15]
that although this provision applies to pre-proclamation controversies, and
here petitioner has already been proclaimed, there is nothing to prevent its
application to cases like the one before us where the validity of the
candidate’s proclamation is precisely in question. The reason is simple — the
Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the
proclamation, such that any error in the Statement of Votes ultimately affects
the validity of the proclamation. Thus,
in Torres we ruled:
It may be argued that because petitioner has already been proclaimed as winning candidate the remedy of the losing party is an election protest over which the Regional Trial Court — and not the COMELEC nor the Municipal Board of Canvassers — has original jurisdiction. However, as this Court already ruled in Duremdes –
It is Duremdes’ further submission that his proclamation could not be declared null and void because a pre-proclamation controversy is not proper after a proclamation has been made, the proper recourse being an election protest. This is on the assumption, however, that there has been a valid proclamation. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.[16]
Angangan is a rightful intervenor
Based on the above considerations,
there should be no objection to Angangan’s
intervention. Under the COMELEC Rules, “any person allowed to initiate an
action or proceeding may, before or during the trial of an action or
proceeding, be permitted by the Commission, in its discretion, to intervene in
such action or proceeding.”[17]
Although the COMELEC failed to resolve Angangan’s
motion to intervene, we find here that his legal interest in the matter is
unquestionable by virtue merely of his candidacy for a position in the Sangguniang Bayan, and is further
cemented by the fact that he directly challenges petitioner’s claim to the
eighth seat in the Sangguniang Bayan.
COMELEC correctly ordered the MBOC
to reconvene and enter corrections
to the Statement of Votes
On the issue of whether there were
manifest errors in the Statement of Votes for the Sangguniang
Bayan candidates, we sustain the factual conclusions
of the COMELEC. The Statement of Votes is a tabulation per precinct of the
votes obtained by all candidates as entered in the election returns. In other
words, the Statement of Votes must correctly reflect the exact number of votes
per precinct based on the entries in the election returns. In this case, the
COMELEC compared the entries in the election returns to those in the Statement
of Votes and found that the total votes tabulated for petitioner in the latter
had been increased by 150. Deducting the 150 votes from petitioner’s total
brings him to ninth place among the candidates, with Angangan
placing eighth.
Thus, what is involved here is a mere recomputation of the votes for each candidate from the data
entered in the election returns as transferred to the Statement of Votes and
afterwards to the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation. The MBOC reconvened
only to perform a simple arithmetical procedure, with no reopening of the
ballot boxes, to the end that the rightful winner may be proclaimed.
In a long line of election cases, we
have consistently held that election laws should be construed liberally to give
effect to the popular will, without resort to technicalities. The court frowns
upon any interpretation of election laws that would hinder in any way not only
the free and intelligent casting of votes in an election but also the correct
ascertainment of the results.[18]
It does not escape our attention that petitioner raised purely technical
objections, but he did not dispute the findings of the COMELEC on the errors in
the Statement of Votes. In the recent case of Alejandro v. COMELEC which
involved a similar set of facts, we held:
There is no controversy that discrepancies exist in the statement of
votes and that reflected in the questioned election returns. Considering that
any error in the statement of votes would affect the proclamation made on the
basis thereof, the resolution of the COMELEC directing the MBOC to reconvene to
rectify the errors it committed in tallying the votes for the vice-mayoralty
race in Alicia, Isabela should be upheld. Indeed,
“above and beyond all, the determination of the true will of the electorate
should be paramount. It is their voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must
prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold sacred.[19]
We
reiterate that absent any grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud, or error of
law, the factual findings
of the COMELEC, when supported by sufficient evidence, are conclusive upon the
Court.[20]
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM
the Resolutions of the COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En Banc
dated
In
view of the proximity of the next elections, this Decision is declared FINAL
and IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
|
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
CERTIFICATION
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.
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 28-37. En Banc Resolution with Chairperson Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. and Commissioners
Rufino S.B. Javier, Mehol
K. Sadain, Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason,
Jr., Virgilio O. Garcillano, and Manuel A. Barcelona, Jr. concurring.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Section 32 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669 states:
Sec. 32. Manifest error.—There is manifest error in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing 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, or two or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated separately,
(3) There was a mistake in the copying of the figures from the election returns to the statement of votes by precinct or from the municipality/city Certificate of Canvass to the Statement of Votes by Municipality, or from the Province/City Certificate of Canvass to the Statement of Votes by province/city,
(4) Returns from non-existent precinct were included in the canvass, or
(5) There was a mistake in the addition of the votes of any candidate.
[10] Rollo, p. 27.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] 320 Phil. 363 (1995).
[16] Id. at 275-276, citing Duremdes v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 86362-63, 27 October 1989, 178 SCRA 746.
[18] O’Hara v. COMELEC, 428 Phil.
1051 (2002), citing Benito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106053,
[19] G.R. No. 167101,