1. PADILLA v.

COMELEC

Facts:

Padilla and Perez were candidates for the position of Assemblyman for Nueva Vizcaya in the national elections
of May 14, 1984.

Padilla alleged the exclusion of 16 returns in favor of him, and also impugns the authenticity of the 76
contested returns included in the canvass of votes in favor of Perez, citing "irregularities" or "anomalies" in the
preparation of the contested election returns.

The Board of Canvassers dismissed Padilla’s petition. The COMELEC affirmed the Board’s decision. Thus,
petition for certiorari brought to annul and set aside the decision of the COMELEC. The petitioner's claim that
alone would not be adequate basis for us to conclude that the Commission's affirmance of the board's rulings
was not supported by substantial evidence; hence arbitrary, whimsical, and without any rational basis.

Issue:

WON rulings in pre-proclamation controversy should be supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling:

NO.

Pre-proclamation proceedings are summary in nature.

By their very nature, and given the obvious public interest in the speedy determination of the results of
elections, pre-proclamation controversies are to be resolved in summary proceedings without the need to
present evidence aliunde and certainly without having to go through voluminous documents and subjecting
them to meticulous technical examinations which take up considerable time.

2. Potencion v. COMELEC
Facts:
Gonzales, a registered voter in the municipality of Baler, province of Aurora, sought for the
disqualification of respondent [Luis S. Etcubanñ ez]), a candidate for Governor of said province of Aurora
under the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) on the ground that respondent was the official candidate of the
Liberal Party and won as Lt. Governor of the Sub-province of Aurora (now province of Aurora) in the local
elections of 1971 in violation of Section 10, Article XII (C) of the Constitution, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 and
P.D. 1661, as amended. Comelec dismissed the petition of Gonzales and directed the proclamation of
Etcubanñ ez if the same had not yet been done.
Issue: WON the COMELEC committed GAD for dismissing the said petition on the ground of lack of merit.
Ruling:
No. A petition for disqualification of a candidate on the very day of the proclamation of the
winning candidate, cannot be described as a pre-proclamation controversy that can be dismissed
outright if found lack of merit.
3. Macabago vs Comelec
GR No. 152163
FACTS:
Macabago was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers as the Municipal Mayor of Saguiran,
Lanao del Sur. Private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC against petitioner to annul the elections
and the proclamation of candidates alleging that there was a massive substitution of voters, rampant and
pervasive irregularities in voting procedures in Precincts. Petitioner denied the truth of the material allegations
in the petition and averred that it raised a pre-proclamation controversy. He further alleged that the grounds
relied upon by private respondent would be proper in an election protest but not in a pre-proclamation
controversy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for annulment of election is same as pre-proclamation controversy.
RULING:
No. The petition for annulment of election is not the same as one involving a pre-proclamation controversy.
The petition of herein private respondent with the public respondent is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the
filing of a regular election protest, the period for the filing of which is deemed suspended by the filing of the
petition before the Commission on Elections which gave rise to the petition at bar.

4. Chavez vs Comelec 221 SCRA 315 (1992)

Facts: The Comelec issued a resolution disqualifying Melchor Chavez from running for Senator in the May
11, 1992 elections. The petitioner then filed an urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it (1)
disseminate to all its agents and the general public the resolution; and (2) order said election officials to
delete the name of Melchor Chavez as printed in the certified list of candidates, tally sheets, election
returns and “to count all votes cast for the disqualified Melchor, Chavez in favor of Francisco I. Chavez . . . .”
Comelec issued a resolution which resolved to delete the name of Melchor Chavez from the list of
qualified candidates. However, it failed to order the crediting of all “Chavez” votes in favor of petitioner as
well as the cancellation of Melchor Chavez name in the list of qualified candidates. On Election Day,
Melchor Chavez remained undeleted in the list of qualified candidates.

Dissatisfied with the failure of respondent Comelec to act on his petition, petitioner filed this urgent
petition for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, enjoining the Comelec from
proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate, without first implementing Comelec’s resolution of
May 12, 1992 and acting upon petitioner’s letter/complaint. Agapito Aquino prayed for the dismissal of
the instant petition on the ground that the law does not allow pre-proclamation controversy involving the
election of members of the Senate.

Issue: WON Comelec acted with Grave abuse of Discretion in failing to act on the petition of Chavez.

Ruling: No. Petitioner has no cause of action, the controversy being in the nature of a pre-proclamation.
While the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies involving
local elective officials, such are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and
Member of the House of Representatives. What is allowed is the correction of “manifest errors in
the certificate of canvass or election returns.” To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the
certificates of canvass or election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have
been made before the board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective
proceedings. The petitioner’s prayer does not call for the correction of “manifest errors in the certificates
of canvass or election returns” before the Comelec but for the reopening of the ballot boxes and
appreciation of the ballots contained therein. He has not even pointed to any “manifest error” in the
certificates of canvass or election returns he desires to be rectified. There being none, the proper recourse
is to file a regular

5. SANDOVAL VS COMELEC; GR 133842

FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent Canuto Senen Greta vied for the congressional seat to which the district
board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the winner. Private respondent filed to correct manifest errors in
the certificate of canvass due to the non-inclusion of certain precincts. Comelec took cognizance of the
petition.

Private respondent claims that COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition. That, while technically a pre-
proclamation case, correction of manifest errors for purposes of the congressional elections is within the
power and authority of the COMELEC to order, in the exercise of its appellate and original jurisdiction over
such subject matter. Peitioner claims otherwise.

ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC has the power to take cognizance.

RULING: YES,
Gen. Rule: The Comelec may not hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against the House and the
Senate. (book) Section 15 of Republic Act (RA) 7166, prohibits candidates in the presidential, vice-
presidential, senatorial and congressional elections from filing pre-proclamation cases.

As an exception, Sec 15 does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or
upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or
election returns before it.The correction of manifest error will not prolong the process of canvassing nor delay
the proclamation of the winner in the election.

6. Panglinan vs. Comelec 228 SCRA 36

Facts: Kiko Pangilinan and Sonny Belmonte were both candidates for congressman in the 4th District of QC
during the 1992 elections. Cadano, as registered voter, filed a petition for disqualification against Belmonte,
for allegedly violating Sec 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, by giving money and other material consideration
to influence, induce or corrupt the voters. Kiko and Cadano filed an urgent motion to suspend the canvassing
and/or proclamation of Belmonte. During the Canvass, Kiko objected to over 120 election returns being
canvassed, alleging that they were tampered, altered or spurious. The City Board of Canvassers overruled the
objections of Kiko. Kiko assailed the constitutionality of RA 7166 that this is violative of Sec 3, Art IX-C of the
Constitution which vests in the Comelec the power to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies without
distinction as to whether the controversy involved the election of Congressmen, or local elective officials.
According to him, the phrase “pre -proclamation contro versies” in Art IX -C embraces all kinds of pre-proc
controversies such as those of the election of Congressmen.
Issue: WON Comelec may hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House and
the Senate.
Ruling: NO. Comelec may not hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House
and the Senate. Objections relating to the preparation, transmission, and appreciation of the election returns
or certificates of canvass fall within the sole jurisdiction of the electoral tribunals. However, manifest errors in
the certificates of canvass or election returns may be corrected by the canvassing body motu proprio or upon
written complaint of interested person, or by the Comelec upon proper appeal form the ruling of the Board of
Canvassers.
Where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the congressional elections, the remedy of
petitioner is to file an electoral protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.

7. LERIAS VS HRET (PRE-PROCLAMATION)

FACTS: Petitioner Rosette Y. Lerias filed her certificate of candidacy as the official candidate of the UPP-KBL for
the position of Representative for the lone district of Southern Leyte in the May 11, 1987 elections. In her
certificate of candidacy she gave her full name as "Rosette Ynigues Lerias". Her maiden name is Rosette
Ynigues. Respondent Roger G. Mercado was the administration candidate for the same position.

During the canvass of votes for the congressional candidates by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Southern
Leyte, it appeared that, excluding the certificate of canvass from the Municipality of Libagon which had been
questioned by Mercado on the ground that allegedly it had been tampered with, the candidates who received
the two (2) highest number of votes were Roger G. Mercado with 34,442 votes and Rosette Y. Lerias with
34,128 votes, respectively.

The HRET majority opinion rejected the election returns and sustained the certificate of canvass because (1)
the Comelec found that the Comelec copy of the certificate of canvass is "regular, genuine and authentic on its
face" and said finding of the Comelec had been sustained by the Supreme Court; (2) the protestant (meaning
Lerias) had agreed during the pre-proclamation proceedings to the use of the Comelec copy of the certificate
of canvass; and (3) the authenticity of the election returns from the four (4) disputed precincts had not been
established.

The reasons given by the majority for doubting the authenticity of the election returns are: (a) the non-
production of the election returns during the entire pre-proclamation proceedings definitely creates much
doubt as to their authenticity especially so when they surfaced only almost a year later after the ballots had
been stolen; (b) during that time, the election returns may have been tampered with and "doctored" to Lerias'
advantage; (c) no proof whatsoever was offered to show that the integrity of the ballot box in which they were
kept was not violated; and (d) thewitnesses presented by Lerias had shown their partisanship in her favor by
executing affidavits to support her protest.

ISSUE: Whether or not the finding of the Comelec in the pre-proclamation proceedings that its copy of the
certificate of canvass is "genuine and authentic" is not binding and conclusive.

RULING: NO. The finding of the Comelec in the pre-proclamation proceedings that its copy of the certificate of
canvass is "genuine and authentic" and which finding was sustained by this Court (G.R. No. 78833; 79882-83) is
not binding and conclusive. The HRET must be referring to the following portion of the decision of this Court
—"Public interest demands that pre-proclamation contests should be terminated with dispatch so as not to
unduly deprive the people of representation, as in this case, in the halls of Congress. As the Court has stressed
in Enrile v. Comelec, and other cases, the policy of the election law is that pre-proclamation controversies
should be summarily decided, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass and proclamation should be
delayed as little as possible.

The powers of the COMELEC are essentially executive and administrative in nature and the question of fraud,
terrorism and other irregularities in the conduct of the election should be ventilated in a regular election
protest and the Commission on Elections is not the proper forum for deciding such matters; neither the
Constitution nor statute has granted the COMELEC or the board of canvassers the power, in the canvass of
elections returns to look beyond the face thereof 'once satisfied of their authenticity'. We believe that the
matters brought up by petitioner should be ventilated before the House Electoral Tribunal.

8. Pimentel III vs Comelec

After the 14 May 2007 national elections. 11 candidates had already been officially proclaimed and had taken
their oaths of office as Senators. The only remaining contenders for the final senatorial post were Pimentel and
private respondent Zubiri. COMELEC en banc, acting as the National Board of Canvassers, continued to conduct
canvass proceedings. Pimentel filed a petition stating that said canvass proceedings were:
a) the proceedings were illegal;
b) the MCOCs were palpably manufactured; (Municipal Certificates of Canvass)
c) the results reflected in the MCOCs were statistically improbable;
d) there is no basis for saying the MCOCs were authentic because there were no other available copies for
comparison purposes;
e) in most of the MCOCs, no watcher signed;
f) there was no evidence or indication that the copy 2 MCOCs had been posted as intended by law;
g) the serial numbers of the MCOCs are not clearly stamped;
h) copy 2 of the MCOCs cannot be used for canvass;
i) that the MCOCs are therefore, improper, unworthy and unfit for canvass;
j) that the manner the "re-canvassing" which was being done where the parties are not allowed to ask
questions was patently illegal; and
k) that it has not been established that the other copies of the MCOCs have been lost..

Issue: W/N the pre-proclamation case is valid.

Ruling: No.

In sum, in elections for President, Vice-President, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives,
the general rule still is that pre-proclamation cases on matters relating to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass are still prohibited. As with
other general rules, there are recognized exceptions to the prohibition, namely: (1) correction of manifest
errors; (2) questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers; and (3)
determination of the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass as provided in Section 30 of
Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369.
9. PATALINGHUG vs COMELEC (GUYS, MAHABA PO ANG RULING SA BOOK, SINUNOD KO LANG)

FACTS: Petitioners ran for local positions during the May 2007 elections. Petitioners questioned the
composition of the Board of Canvassers (BOC), and objected to the inclusion of several election returns
(ERs).

As the BOC ruled against them, petitioners filed their notices of appeal, and consequently, initiated with
the COMELEC a Pre-Proclamation Petition seeking the declaration of the composition and the
proceedings of the BOC as illegal.

Petitioners also filed an Appeal with the COMELEC.

COMELEC First Division issued the Order directing the BOC to proclaim the winning candidates; and the
BOC proclaimed private respondents as duly elected officials of Lapu-Lapu City.

Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for the recall and/or nullification of the said proclamation.

COMELEC First Division rendered the Resolution dismissing the said case.

Consequently, the COMELEC en banc issued the third assailed Resolution or the Omnibus Resolution on
Pending Cases. In the said Resolution, petitioners’ cases were not included in the list of pre-proclamation
cases that shall remain active after June 30, 2007.

Discontented with the said COMELEC issuances, petitioners instituted the instant petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.

ISSUE: What is the appropriate recourse to assail COMELEC resolutions issued pursuant to Section 16 of
R.A. No. 7166
RULING: First, if a pre-proclamation case is excluded from the list of those (annexed to the Omnibus
Resolution on Pending Cases) that shall continue after the beginning of the term of the office involved, the
remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file a certiorari petition assailing the Omnibus Resolution
before the Court under Rules 64 and 65, regardless of whether a COMELEC division is yet to issue a
definitive ruling in the main case or the COMELEC en banc is yet to act on a motion for reconsideration
filed if there is any.

It follows that if the resolution on the motion for reconsideration by the banc precedes the exclusion of
the said case from the list, what should be brought before the Court on certiorari is the decision resolving
the motion.

Second, if a pre-proclamation case is dismissed by a COMELEC division and, on the same date of
dismissal or within the period to file a motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc excluded the
said case from the list annexed to the Omnibus Resolution, the remedy of the aggrieved party is also to
timely file a certiorari petition assailing the Omnibus Resolution before the Court under Rules 64 and 65.
The aggrieved party need no longer file a motion for reconsideration of the division ruling.

The rationale for this is that the exclusion by the COMELEC en banc of a pre-proclamation case from the
list of those that shall continue is already deemed a final dismissal of that case not only by the division but
also by the COMELEC en banc. As already explained earlier, the aggrieved party can no longer expect any
favorable ruling from the COMELEC.

And third, if a pre-proclamation case is dismissed by a COMELEC division but, on the same date of
dismissal or within the period to file a motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc included the
case in the list annexed to the Omnibus Resolution, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to timely file a
motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc. The reason for this is that the challenge to the
ruling of the COMELEC division will have to be resolved definitively by the entire body.

10. OLFATO v COMELEC

FACTS: Respondent (candidate for mayor) sought for the suspension of the canvass and proclamation of
winning candidates.
Petitioners (winning candidates for mayor & sangguniang bayan) averred that "it is clear that fake voters, fake
Ids and fake Identification slips are fraudulent election practices which may not be entertained by Comelec in
a pre-proclamation controversy.
ISSUE: W/N Comelec has jurisdiction over this case.
RULING: YES. The COMELEC has the power and authority to inquire into the allegation of fake voters, with fake
ID’s in a pre-proclamation controversy in order to determinethe authenticity or integrity of election returns or
whether such election returnsfaithfully record that only registered or genuine voters were allowed to vote.
Although the Comelec has no original jurisdiction over election contests involving municipal officers, the
Comelec has jurisdiction over a pre-proclamation controversy concerning elective municipal officers, even if
some of the grounds of the pre-proclamation dispute are grounds for an election protest.
11. Pangilinan vs Comelec

Facts:
 Petitioner and Private Respondent(PR) both candidates for congressman in the 4 th legislative district in Quezon
City. PR was alleged to have violated the OEC by giving money and other material considerations to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters (giving sacks of rice, ticket to Hong Kong, etc). Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend the
Canvass and Proclamation of Belmonte but COMELEC ignored the said motion.

During the canvass of the returns, the petitioner, thru his counsel, objected to over 120 election returns being
canvassed by the City Board of Canvassers on the ground that they were tampered, altered or spurious. The City Board of
Canvassers, however, overruled petitioner's objections on the ground that under Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 and Section
23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2413, entitled "General Instructions for the Provincial/City/District and Municipal Board
of Canvassers" pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed in the election of members of the House of
Representatives

Issue: W/N the canvassing body has jurisdiction

Ruling: Yes. Manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election returns may be corrected by the canvassing body
motu proprio or upon written complaint of interested person, or by the Comelec upon proper appeal from the ruling of
the board of canvassers

12. Sandoval vs Comelec

Facts:
Petitioner and private respondent herein were candidates for the congressional seat for the Malabon-
Navotas legislative district. Subsequently, the district board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner the duly
elected congressman. The petitioner took his oath of office on the same day. Private respondent filed with the
Comelec a petition, which sought the annulment of petitioner’s proclamation. He alleged that there was a
verbal order from the Comelec Chairman to suspend the canvass and proclamation of the winning candidate,
but the district board of canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclamation despite the said verbal
order. He also alleged that there was non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, which would result in
an incomplete canvass of the election returns.
The Comelec en banc issued an order setting aside the proclamation of petitioner and ruled the
proclamation as void.
Issue:
Whether or not the COMELEC's order to set aside petitioner's proclamation was valid.
Held:
No. It’s invalid having been rendered without due process of law.
Citing Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code, private respondent argues that the COMELEC is
authorized to annul an illegal proclamation even without notice and hearing because the law states that it
may motu proprio order a partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annul
partially or totally any proclamation, if one has been made. SC rejected this argument.
 The law provides two ways by which annulment of proclamation proceedings may be initiated. It
may be at the own initiative of the COMELEC (motu proprio) or by written petition. The phrase “motu
proprio” does not refer to the annulment of proclamation but to the manner of initiating the proceedings to
annul a proclamation made by the board of canvassers.
13. Velayo vs. Comelec (Parties)
Facts:
Arthur Velayo and PR Ernesto Natividad were among the candidates for Mayor of Gapan Nueva Ecija. PR orally
sought the exclusion of Election Return on 3 precints on the ground that it is incomplete and contains material
defects. PR filed 3 more cases before the Comelec w/o giving notice of appeal to Velayo. All his petitions were
denied by Comelec En Banc. PR filed a MR contending that the order of dismissal is contrary to law and the
evidence. Again, Velayo was bit given a copy of the motion. Comelec En Banc ruled in favor of respondent and
annulled the proclamation of petitioner. The Sol Gen agreed with Velayo and opined that the Comelec gravely
abused its discretion when it issued the impugned resolution.
*Velayo claimed that he was denied due process because he was not furnished any notice of the pre-
proclamation proceedings against him from beginning to end. All that petitioner received from the Comelec
was its en banc resolution annulling his proclamation.*
Issue:
W/N Velayo is a real party in interest since he was proclaimed the Mayor?
Ruling: YES
The proclaimed mayor and the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers were not impleaded in the pre-
proclamation cases brought before the Comelec. The non-inclusion of the proclaimed winner as respondent in
a pre-proclamation controversy and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the Comelec which resulted in the
cancellation of his proclamation constitute clear denial of the process.

15. NAVARRO vs. COMELEC

GR No. 150799; February 3, 2003

FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to set aside the COMELEC en banc resolution denying
petitioner’s petition for exclusion of election returns. Both Amelita Navarro (petitioner) and Jose Miranda (private
respondent) were mayoralty candidates of Santiago City, Isabela during the 2001 elections. The BOC convened and
started canvassing the election returns when the lawyer of Navarro objected to conduct of canvass citing irregularities in
the sealing of the envelops of the election returns and the absense of the padlocks in the ballot boxes. Navarro through
counsel filed a petition before the BOC to exclude 9 ballot boxes due to the alleged irregularities in the sealing and
securing the ballot boxes. The BOC denied the petition and so Navarro filed an appeal before the COMELEC. Pending
appeal, the BOC suspended the proclamation of Miranda. COMELEC through its resolution denied the appeal and
ordered the BOC to complete the canvass of the ERs as well as proclaim the winners of the elections. Hence, the petition
for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a pre-proclamation controversy that warrants the suspension of the proclamation of
winners.

RULING: NO. Non-compliance by a BOC of the prescribed canvassing procedure is not an “illegal proceeding”
under paragraph (a) of Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, given the summary nature of a pre-proclamation
controversy, consistent with the law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. A
preproclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face and the COMELEC as a
general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate the alleged election irregularities.

“Section 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns.—

(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the
latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation in violation hereof shall
be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election.,”

As correctly ruled by the COMELEC, petitioner’s reliance on said Section is misplaced. The Section applies only where
the objection deals with a pre-proclamation controversy, not where, as in the present petition, it raises or deals with
no such controversy.

16. Antonio vs. Comelec

Facts:
Returns from twenty one precincts in the province of Batanes, were annulled by the Comelec, thus setting
aside the proclamation of congressional candidate Rufino Antonio, Jr. by the Provincial Board of Canvassers for
having been "prepared at gunpoint".
Private respondents Jorge A. Abad, Liberal Party official candidate, and Mrs. Renee Agudo, Nacionalista Party
official candidate, then filed independent petitions with COMELEC, contesting the proclamation
of Rufino Antonio, Jr. by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on the basis of terrorism practiced by armed men
brought to Batanes by candidate Antonio.
Antonio raised a special defense that hat both Abed and Agudo waived their rights to contest the
proclamations or are estopped from asserting it in view of their failure to attend the canvass and impugn
therein the validity of the questioned returns and further by the fact that he has taken an oath of office
on 30 November 1969 thus he has assumed office.
Issue: Whether or not the Private Respondents are estopped from contesting the proclamation in lieu of their
failure to attend the canvass made by the Provincial Board of Canvassers?
Ruling:
No. Where the proclamation by the board of canvassers is illegal because it was based on returns that were
actually the product of coercion, the assumption of office cannot in any way affect the basic issues in
election contest.
(Main Point: Where the proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office can not in any way affect the
basic issues")

17. Mutuc v Comelec

Facts:

The petitioners were the candidates of the Nacionalista Party, for the offices of mayor, vice mayor and
councilors in the municipality of Makati, Rizal in the general elections. The private respondents were the rival
candidates of the LP.

In counting the votes from the various precincts in Makati, the MBOC was confronted with an election
return which, while listing the names of the candidates, contained no entry at all of the votes cast for them.
This was the return from precinct 124. A recourse to the provincial treasurer's copy of the same return yielded
no result as it was likewise blank or incomplete. So was the Comelec's copy, except that this showed the total
number (263, according to the parties) of the votes cast in the precinct. As a result, counting had to be
stopped.

The board of canvassers filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging that because of
discrepancies in the returns from certain precincts in Makati, among them precinct 124, the board could not
proclaim the winning candidates, and, for this reason, praying for the opening of the ballot boxes in the
precincts in question.

The board did not, however, press its petition. Instead, it asked the Comelec to be allowed to proceed
with the proclamation of the winning candidates, disregarding for this purpose the return from precinct 124,
on the claim that as the Comelec's copy of the return showed that there was a total of only 263 votes cast in
that precinct, the results of that election would not materially be changed by their inclusion.

Issue: Whether or not the proclamation is valid and if valid, what is its effect?

Ruling: No. The proclamation is not valid.

Although after proclamation and assumption of office, the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in an
election is an election protest, and in fact there was already an election protest in this case, that is so only
when the assumption of office was made under a valid proclamation but not where, as in this case, the
proclamation was based on an incomplete canvass and was illegall.

18. Padilla vs. Comelec

Facts: Petitioner Carlos M. Padilla and private respondent Leonardo B. Perez were
candidates for the position of Assemblyman for Nueva Vizcaya . The matter elevated to
the Court was a pre-proclamation controversy. The decision of the respondent
Commission was promulgated on August 7, 1984. The instant petition was filed with this
Court on August 20, 1984, or three months after the May 14, 1984 election. Private
respondent was proclaimed on June 2, 1984, as the duly-elected Assemblyman for Nueva
Vizcaya. He took his oath of office in due time, discharging thereafter his duties and
functions as Assemblyman.
Issue: WON pre-proclamation proceedings is still applicable as the proper remedy.
Ruling: No. Where the candidate against whom a pre-proclamation controversy
was brought has been proclaimed and has assumed office, a pre-proclamation
controversy is no longer viable and should be dismissed. The proper remedy
for adjudicating charges of “irregularities” is an election contest.
19. Jainal vs Comelec G.R. No. 174551 (Effect of proclamation)

Facts: Petitioner Jainal and private respondent Talib were cantidates for Mayor of Indanan, Sulu in the 2004
elections. During the canvassing, Talib objected to the inclusion of certain returns before the Municipal Board
of canvassers (MBC for brevity). Talib’s objection was denied and the MBC proceeded with the canvassing and
thereby included the contested returns. Petitioner was proclaimed winner by the MBC. Talib filed a pre-
proclamation case with the COMELEC for the annulment of some election returns and be proclaimed as Mayor.
Talib claimed that his official watchers were asked to leave the precints before the counting and the
preparation of the election returns. Furthermore, the election returns for these precints did not bear the
signatures of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) which indicates that said returns were manufactured. Talib
also noted that the votes cast in some precints exceeded the number of voters therein. COMELEC issued a
resolution for the annulment of some returns and the annulment of the petitioner’s proclamation.
COMELEC en banc denied reconsideration but modified the resolution of its 2nd Division by declaring the
election return pertaining to Precinct 9A of Barangay Adjid as valid. Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition.

Issue: W/N a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is viable after a proclamation has been made.

Held: Yes. The general rule is that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is, logically, no longer viable
after a proclamation has been made; Exceptions.—It is worthy of note that what was filed with and resolved by
the poll body is a pre-proclamation case. Pre-proclamation cases refer to any question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered
political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter
raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of election returns. The general rule is that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is,
logically, no longer viable after a proclamation has been made. However, this rule admits of exceptions, as
when the proclamation is null and void. The proclamation of petitioner in this case is void for three (3)
reasons: (1) it was based on a canvass that should have been suspended with respect to the contested election
returns; (2) it was done without prior COMELEC authorization which is required in view of the unresolved
objections of Talib to the inclusion of certain returns in the canvass; and (3) it was predicated on a canvass that
included unsigned election returns involving such number of votes as will affect the outcome of the election. In
this regard, it has long been recognized that among the reliefs that the COMELEC may grant is to nullify a
proclamation or suspend the effects of one.

20 Samad vs Comelec
Facts: Samad and Abdula were mayoralty candidates of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. 2 canvassing boards were
created during the election and each of the boards proclaimed Samad and Abdula as winners. Samad filed with
the Comelec First Division a petition to nullify Abdulla’s proclamation, and for special election. Few days after,
Samad also filed for a quo warranto case against Abdulla. (Guys wala sinabi sa full text ano ang basis ng quo
warranto at special elections sorry)

Issue: Won the cases pending in the COMELEC affect the filing by Samad of the petition for quo warranto in the
Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City?

Held: Yes. 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 is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an
election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case
itself and not in another proceeding. This procedure will prevent confusion and conflict of authority.
Conformably, we have ruled in a number of cases that after a proclamation has been made, a pre-proclamation
case before the COMELEC is no longer viable. The rule admits of exceptions, however, as where: 1) the board
of canvassers was improperly constituted; 2) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; 3) what was filed
was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; 4)
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 5) the proclamation was null and void.
21. Sarmiento v COMELEC 212 SCRA 307 (1992)
Facts: This special civil actions for certiorari, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seek to set aside the
Resolutions of the COMELEC in nine Special Cases. All involve either appeals to decisions of Municipal or
Provincial Board of Canvassers, or other pre-proclamation cases elevated to the Commission.
Issue: WON the commencement of the term of office affects the pre-proclamation cases then pending
Ruling: Yes. Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before it shall be
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved, without prejudice to the filing of a
regular election protest by the aggrieved party. However, the proceedings may continue when on the basis of
the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and issues
an order for the proceeding to continue, or when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court
in a petition for certiorari. The terms of the offices involved in the Special Cases subject of these petitions
commenced at noon of 30 June 1992. These cases have thus been rendered moot and such a resolution
would only be an exercise in futility.
22. Loong v. COMELEC; G.R. No. 133676, April 4, 1999

FACTS: Petitioner Tupay Loong and private respondent Abdusakur Tan ran for Governor,
while petitioner Kimar Tulawie and private respondent Munib Estino were candidates for
Vice-Governor. After the canvass of the election returns of (16) of the (18) municipalities
of Sulu, respondent Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the
COMELEC a re-canvass of the election returns of Parang and Talipao. Private
respondents objected the inclusion in the canvass of the election returns of Parang. PBC,
denied objections of private respondents. The canvass of PBC showed petitioners to have
overwhelmingly won in the municipality of Parang. PBC’s denial of objections to the
election returns was dismissed by the COMELEC. June 9, 1995, private respondents
already filed a petition which prayed that the elections in Parang, Sulu, be set
aside and annulled on the ground that there was failure of election in said
municipality due to massive fraud. Commission ordered the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Sulu to bring to the COMELEC central office the CE Form 2 which pertains
to the list of voters with voting records used in the elections and the books of voters for
all precincts. Anticipating that the COMELEC would use the said documents to
conduct a technical examination of the signatures and thumb marks affixed in
the list of voters with voting records (CE Form 2) and in the registration forms
(CE Form 1), petitioners Loong and Tulawie prayed that the COMELEC inform
them as to whether or not it would conduct a technical examination of CE
Forms 1 and 2, which examination, petitioners argued in their motion, has
been Proscribed in pre-proclamation controversies, and that, in the alternative,
the same examination be conducted as regards CE Forms 1 and 2 of the municipalities of
Siasi, Panglima Estino, Tapul, Pata and Kalinggalang Caluang, where private respondents
allegedly committed rampant fraud during the elections.
ISSUE: W/N there is a post-proclamation remedy?
RULING: YES. Where the propriety of a pre-proclamation controversy ends, there may begin the
realm of a special action for declaration of failure of elections.
The COMELEC may exercise such power motu proprio or upon a verified petition. The
hearing of the case shall be summary in nature, and the COMELEC may delegate to its
lawyers the power to hear the case and to receive evidence. Before COMELEC can act on
a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, two (2) conditions must
concur: first, no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by
law or, even if there were voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect;
and second, the votes not cast would affect the result of the election. We must add, that
the cause of such failure of election should have been any of the
following: force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
causes. This is an important consideration for, where the propriety of a pre-
proclamation controversy ends, there may begin the realm of a special action
for declaration of failure of elections.
 Under the present state of our election laws, the COMELEC has been granted
precisely the power to annul elections. "The Synchronized Elections Law of 1991,"
provides that the COMELEC sitting En Banc by a majority vote of its members
may decide, among others, the declaration of failure of election and the calling
of special elections as provided in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.

23. GR. 139357 May 5, 2000

Abdulmadid P.B Maruhom v. COMELEC

FACTS: Maruhom and PR Dimaporo are mayoralty candidates in the mun. of Marogong Lanao del Sur.
Serious anomalies and electoral frauds were committed during the counting of votes at the instance of
Maruhom/his followers, where votes in favor of PR was credited to Maruhom. Maruhom was proclaimed.
PR filed w/ COMELEC a petition to annul the proclamation and filed an ordinary protest ad cautelam
against Maruhom w/ RTC. Maruhom filed counter-protest. PR withdrew his petition w/ COMELEC. PR
later filed an urgent petition w/ RTC praying for the issuance of an order directing the proper
officials/officers concerned to bring and produce before said court the ballot boxes subjects of the protest
and counter-protest. A Revision Committee was created to finish the revision of the ballots.

Maruhom contested this, stating that the integrity of the ballot boxes and ballots concerned have been
violated, and that PR is guilty of forum-shopping.

ISSUE: WON PR is guilty of forum-shopping.

HELD: No. The rule is that filing of an election protest/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. [Reason: If a competent tribunal gains jurisdiction over the election protest, all the
questions relating thereto shall be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding.]

However, one of the exceptions is when the protest was made ad cautelam. A candidate who filed a
petition to annul the proclamation of another with COMELEC should also file a protest ad cautelam
against such other candidate in the proper forum as a precautionary measure within the reglementary
period.

Notes: The Machine Operator during the elections is the nephew of Maruhom.

Sanchez vs. COMELEC

Facts:

Augusto Sanchez sought a recount of the votes in the senatorial elections to determine the true number of
votes in his favor and asked to withhold the proclamation of the last 4 winning candidates (including Juan
Ponce Enrile, ranked 24th

Sanchez anchors his petition to alleged material defects in the canvassed election returns, contending that the
returns discarding ‘Sanchez’ votes as stray were incomplete and warrant a recount. The fact that some votes
written solely as "Sanchez" were declared stray votes because of the inspectors' erroneous belief that Gil
Sanchez had not been disqualified as a candidate, involves an erroneous appreciation of the ballots. It is
established by the law as well as jurisprudence that errors in the appreciation of ballots by the board of
inspectors are proper subject for election protest and not for recount or re-appreciation of the ballots.

COMELEC first dismissed Sanchez’ petition but then reversed and granted it; To this, Enrile filed a 2 nd petition
to, again, proclaim him as the winner, and to dismiss Sanchez’ claim invoking the ground that COMELEC
exceeded its jurisdiction since Sanchez’ petition is not a pre-proclamation controversy involving extrinsic
validity

Issue: W/N Sanchez’ petition for a recount is a summary pre-proclamation controversy which falls under
COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction or is an election protest (SET jurisdiction)

Ruling: No. It is not a summary pre-proclamation controversy.

B: The scope of a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under OEC, S 243. The
enumeration is restrictive and exclusive.

Sec. 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. - The following shall be proper issues that
may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;

(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code;

(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic; and

(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates.

The ground for recount relied upon by Sanchez is clearly not among the issues that may be raised in a pre-
proclamation controversy. His allegation of invalidation of "Sanchez" votes intended for him bear no relation to
the correctness and authenticity of the election returns canvassed.

25. Navarro v Comelec

Facts:

Amelita S. Navarro (petitioner) and Jose C. Miranda (private respondent) were candidates for mayor of
Santiago City, Isabela. City Board of Canvassers (BOC) convened for the canvassing of the election returns.
Upon opening of the envelope containing the first return, counsel for petitioner objected on the ground that
the return was not properly sealed specifically mentioning the “lack of the required number of padlocks (3) on
the ballot boxes containing the election returns is a proper issue in a pre-proclamation case” because they
were exposed to tampering, substitution, alteration and switching.
Issue:

Whether the lack of the required number of padlocks on the ballot boxes containing the election
returns is a proper issue in a pre-proclamation case

Ruling:

No. Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code enumerates the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Illegal composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers;

b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 of this Code;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic; and

d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were canvassed, the results of which
materially affected the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. The scope of a pre-proclamation
controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under OEC 243. The enumeration here is restrictive and
exclusive.

26. Chu vs. COMELEC

FACTS:The petitioner and respondent were candidates for municipal mayor of Uson,
Masbate. While the election returns were being canvassed by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Uson, Masbate (MBC), petitioner objected to the inclusion in the canvass
of some of the election returns. Petitioner alleged that respondent, with the aid of armed
men, entered into the polling places where the centralized counting was being
conducted, and exerted undue influence and intimidation upon the board of election
inspectors (BEI) who were then counting the votes and preparing the election returns.
Thus, according to petitioner, the votes reflected in these returns are no longer reflective
of the will of the electorate and should not be included in the canvass.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proclamation of respondent as the winning mayoralty

candidate of Uson, Masbate is valid

RULING: YES. Pre-proclamation controversies are properly limited to

challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and proceedings before
said Board relating to particular election returns to which private respondent
should have made specific verbal objections subsequently reduced to writing.
In a pre-proclamation case, there is no need to go beyond the face of the election return
which appears to be authentic and regular. If there had been sham voting or minimal
voting which was made to appear as normal through the falsification of the election
returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-
proclamation controversy.

The only issue raised by petitioner which may possibly be the subject of a pre-
proclamation controversy is the entry of Sanchez and her armed bodyguards in the
polling places during the counting of ballots and the preparation of the election returns,
which allegedly caused the intimidation and undue influence of the members of the BEI,
resulting in the sudden and radical change in the election returns. Electoral irregularities
enumerated by petitioner are not proper to a pre-proclamation controversy for so long as
the election returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the
other issues raised by petitioner have necessarily become moot and academic.

27. DAGLOC v. COMELEC

Facts:

Dagloc is questioning the ruling of the COMELEC en banc to exclude certain election returns for being t
manufactured and/or falsified, it is not authentic, it contains alterations. However, in arriving at the resolution,
the COMELEC en banc also gave great weight to the affidavit of the BEI members which were supposed to
prove the regularity of the BEI’s assigned task. The COMELEC en banc found that these affidavits lacked
signatures of the BEI members.

Issue:

WON the objections initially raised were proper in a pre-proclamation controversy

Ruling:

YES.

The objections initially raised were proper in a pre-proclamation controversy, i.e, the election returns are
obviously manufactured and/or falsified, it is not authentic, it contains alterations. It is among the enumerated
issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy setforth in Sectiom 243. The said enumeration is
restrictive and exclusive.

28. Bandala v. COMELEC

Facts:
During the canvass of the election returns conducted by the City Board of Canvassers of Oroquieta City,
respondent objected to the inclusion of eighty (80) election returns on the following grounds: (1) that
seventy-one (71) election returns were not secured with inner paper seals; (2) that seven (7) election
returns do not indicate the party affiliation of the watchers-signatories; and (3) that two (2) election
returns have missing pages which contain the list of the local city candidates. the City Board of Canvassers
overturned the objection of respondent and included in its canvass the contested election returns.
Petitioner was proclaimed the duly elected mayor of Oroquieta City. However, the Comelec en banc
reversed this decision and ordered to nullify the proclamation of the petitioner.
Issue: WON the COMELEC can look beyond the election returns and receive evidence aliunde in a pre-
proclamation controversy.
Ruling:
No. Assuming that the ground of lack of inner paper seals in election returns is a proper issue in a pre-
proclamation controversy, the COMELEC cannot investigate and receive evidence to determine why those
inner paper seals are missing. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the
election returns on their face and the COMELEC as a general need not go beyond the face of the
returns and investigate the alleged election irregularities.
29. Lucman vs Comelec
GR No. 166229
FACTS:
Petitioner Lucman and private respondent Pandi were mayoralty candidates in Poona-Bayabao, Lanao del
Sur during 2004 elections. During the canvassing of votes, private respondent objected to the inclusion of ten
election returns alleging that the election returns is obviously manufactured and/or falsified, not authentic,
and contains alterations. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate.
Private respondent alleged that the elections held in the precincts were tainted with massive election
irregularities such as “massive substitution of voters, snatching of ballots from the voters by people identified
with the Lucman who filled them up against the will of voters, force or coercion, threats, intimidation, casting
of votes by double registrants in the same precincts and flying voters. Private respondent admits that the
exclusion of the contested returns is a ground for election protest, but he also argues that the COMELEC may
go beyond the face of the returns to determine whether the elections in the precincts involved are a sham.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face.
RULING:
Yes. The foregoing allegations pertain not only to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
appreciation of the election returns, but to the conduct of the elections as well.
Pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges directed against the Board of Canvassers and
proceedings before said Board relating to particular election returns to which private respondent should have
made specific verbal objections subsequently reduced to writing. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to
an examination of the election returns on their face. As a rule, the COMELEC is limited to an examination of
the election returns on their face. It is beyond the COMELECs jurisdiction to go beyond the face of the
returns or investigate election irregularities.

30. Sanchez vs Comelec 153 SCRA 67

Facts: Candidate Augusto Sanchez filed his petition on 28 May 1987 praying that respondent Comelec
after due hearing, be directed to conduct a recount of the votes cast three months ago in the 11 May 1987
senatorial elections to determine the true number of votes to be credited to him and prayed further for a
restraining order directing the Comelec to withhold the proclamation of the last 4 winning candidates on
the ground that the votes intended for him were declared as stray votes because of the sameness of his
surname with that of disqualified candidate Gil Sanchez, whose name had not been crossed out from
Comelec election forms.

Issue: W/N the petition for recount is a pre-proclamation controversy and, therefore, congnizable by
COMELEC.

Ruling: No. The powers of Comelec are essentially executive and administrative in nature, and the
question of whether or not there had been terrorism, vote buying and other irregularities in the
election should be ventilated in a regular election protest, and the Comelec is not the proper
forum for deciding such matters. Sanchez anchors his petition for recount and/or reappreciation on
Section 243, paragraph (b) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 234 thereof with regard to
material defects in canvassed election returns. He contends that the canvassed returns discarding
"Sanchez" votes as stray were "incomplete" and therefore warrant a recount or reappreciation of the
ballots under Section 234. Here, the election returns are complete and indicate the name of Sanchez as
well as the total number of votes that were counted and appreciated as votes in his favor by the boards of
inspectors. It is established by the law as well as jurisprudence that errors in the appreciation of ballots
by the board of inspectors are proper subject for election protest and not for recount or reappreciation of
the ballots. The appreciation of the ballots cast in the precincts is not a "proceeding of the board of
canvassers" for purposes of pre-proclamation proceedings.

31. PADILLA VS COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner and private respondent Leonardo B. Perez were candidates for the position of Assemblyman. Pilotin,
an independent candidate filed a petition contesting the Board of Canvassers’ composition which suspended
the canvass.

Petitioner filed an urgent ex parte motion to direct the said Board to commence with the canvass of election
returns and "thereafter, to proclaim the winner”. Comelec ordered to replace the Borad member to which,
resolved to exclude from the canvass of votes 16 election returns.

The respondent Board forthwith proclaimed private respondent. Comelec affirmed the proclamation.
Petitioner files a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether the Petition for Certiorari is proper

RULING: NO

The proper remedy for adjudicating charges of “irregularities” is an election contest, not in a pre-proclamation
controversy.

The matter elevated to this Court was a pre-proclamation controversy. The decision of the respondent
Commission was promulgated after private respondent, was proclaimed. He took his oath of office in due time,
discharging thereafter his duties and functions as Assemblyman. Such pre-proclamation controversy is no
longer viable at this point of time and should be dismissed. Pre-proclamation proceedings are summary in
nature. An election contest would be the most appropriate remedy. Instead of the submission of mere
affidavits, the parties would be able to present witnesses subject to the right of confrontation, etc, Recourse to
such remedy would settle the matters in controversy "conclusively and once and for all."

32. Ututalum vs Comelec 181 SCRA 335

Facts: Ututalum and Anni were candidates for the 2nd congressional district of Sulu. Utatalum filed with the Provincial Board of
Canvassers that the election returns appearedto be tampered with or falsified. Petitioner claimed that there were an excess
number of voters in Siasi. It was dismissed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on the ground that it was filed out of time and
that it should have been raised before the votes for Siasi havebeen canvassed. Thereafter, he filed a written petition with the
COMELEC seeking toannul the elections in Siasi and to conduct another election. The board of canvassers forwarded the appeal of
petitioner with the COMELEC with a request to proclaim Annias the winner. The COMELEC resolved that there was no failure of
elections. Anni was proclaimed the winner. While Ututalum’s petition was pending, the governor of Sulu sought to
annul the list of voters of Siasi which was upheld by the SC.

Issue: WON petition should be granted on the ground of vote padding.

Ruling: NO. Padding the list of voters is not a listed ground for a pre-proclamation. That the padding of the List
of Voters may constitute fraud, or that the Board of Election Inspectors may have fraudulently conspired in its
preparation, would not be a valid basis for a pre-proclamation controversy either. For, whenever irregularities,
such as fraud, are asserted, the proper course of action is an election protest.

33. DIPATUAN VS COMELEC (ON FRAUD)

FACTS: Petitioner Dipatuan and private respondent Aleem Hosain Amanoddin were candidates for Mayor of
Bacolod Grande in the 1 February 1988 special local elections in Lanao del Sur. The other private respondents
were candidates for Vice-Mayor and Councilors in the same municipality.

On 21 February 1988, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bacolod Grande, chaired by Samuel Minalang,
finished canvassing the votes but did not proclaim the winning candidates. It did so on 29 February 1988, when
private respondent Amanoddin was proclaimed winner and elected Mayor.

Earlier, on 25 February 1988, petitioner Dipatuan was proclaimed Mayor by a separate Board of Canvassers
headed by one Mamacaog Manggray, after the said Board had excluded the election returns from Precincts
Nos. 15, 17 and 21 from its canvass.

The Comelec En Banc set aside both (a) the proclamation made by the Minalang Board for being premature,
the candidates not having been given the opportunity to appeal, and (b) the proclamation by the Manggray
Board on the ground that the latter Board had not been properly constituted. A Special Board of Canvassers
("Special Board") was therefore convened in Manila by the Comelec to recanvass the election returns from
Bacolod Grande, Lanao del Sur.

On 21 June 1988, during the recanvass, petitioner objected to the inclusion of the election returns from
Precincts Nos. 15 and 17, contending that the returns from the two (2) precincts were spurious and
manufactured". In this connection, petitioner seasonable converted his oral objection into written form and
submitted certified copies of the voting records and voter's affidavits and affidavits of witnesses. The petitioner
claimed that the questioned returns were "obviously manufactured" within the eaning of Section 243 (c) of the
Omnibus Election Code and that therefore a pre-proclamation controversy existed which must be resolved
before proclamation of the winning candidates Petitioner contended the following irregularities had attended
at the Bacolod Grande local elections

ISSUE: Whether or not the action should of an election protest?

Ruling: YES. “That the padding of the List of Voters may constitute fraud, or that the Board of Election
Inspectors may have fraudulently conspired in its preparation, would not be a valid basis for a pre-
proclamation controversy either. For, whenever irregularities, such as fraud, are asserted, the proper course of
action is an election protest. ‘Such irregularities as fraud, vote-buying and terrorism are proper grounds in an
election contest but may not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the
greater number of the electorate through the misdeeds, precisely, of only a relative few. Otherwise, elections
will never be carried out with the resultant disenfranchisement of the innocent voters, for the losers will
always cry fraud and terrorism.’ ” Dipatuan vs. Commission on Elections, 185 SCRA 86, G.R. No. 86117 May 7,
1990
The apparent alphabetical and chronological sequence in the voting alleged was not proof of fraud that would
justify the exclusion of assailed returns. Irregularities such as fraud cannot be considered as a ground for a pre-
proclamation controversy. To require the comparison of thumb marks and signatures of the voters through the
different records and affidavits, what should have been filed was an election protest and not a pre-
proclamation controversy.

34. Chavez v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 315 [1992] (pre-proclamation)

FACTS: On 5 May, 1992, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in the case of Francisco
Chavez vs. COMELEC (GR 104704) which disqualified Melchor Chavez from running for Office of
Senator in the May, 1992 elections. When COMELEC received the resolution, Francisco Chavez filed
an urgent motion to the COMELEC praying that 1.) to disseminate through the fastest available
means the resolution to all election officials and areas, and 2.) to delete Melchor Chavez’s name
among the list of certified candidates and "to count all votes cast for the disqualified Melchor Chavez
in favor of Francisco Chavez."
COMELEC issued Res. No. 92-1322 which deleted the name of Melchor Chavez from the list
of candidates, however it failed to order the crediting of “Chavez” votes in favor of Francisco.
According to Francisco, COMELEC failed delete the name of the disqualified candidate, in violation of
RA 7166, Sec. 7, and thus the name of Melchor Chavez remained undeleted during election day. In
this confusion, the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs) from 170,354 precincts nationwide declared
votes for Melchor Chavez as either stray or invalidated, and as a result votes for Melchor were not
credited to Francisco.

Francisco then filed a petition for COMELEC to, among other points, to re-open the ballot
boxes in 13 provinces involving some 80,348 precincts, to scan for the "Chavez" votes for purposes
of crediting the same in his favor, and to suspend the proclamation of the 24 winning candidates
through the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO.)

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be filed with the SET

HELD: Yes. Section 242 of the OEC provides that preproclamation contests are not allowed in
elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. The
proper recourse should have been to file a regular election protest before the SET. The petition must
also fail for failure to demonstrate any manifest error in the certificates of canvass or election returns
before the COMELEC which would warrant their correction.

What is allowed is the correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election
returns.—It is clear from the above-quoted provision of the law that “pre-proclamation cases (are) not
allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of
Representatives.” What is allowed is the correction of “manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or
election returns.” To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or
election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the
board of canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings. Chavez vs.
Commission on Elections, 211 SCRA 315, G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 Additionally, RA 7166 states
that only "manifest errors (i.e. appearing on the face) in the certificate of canvass or election returns”
may be corrected. The Court cited the case of Sanchez v. COMELEC which further defined the
characteristics for such manifest errors under the Omnibus Election Code: the election returns are
incomplete or contain material defects (sec. 234), appear to have been tampered with, falsified or
prepared under duress (sec. 235) and/or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate,
the difference of which affects the result of the election (sec. 236). Francisco Chavez’s complaint that
“Chavez” votes were not counted in his favor clearly does not fall under any of the elements listed in
the Omnibus Code.

In the absence of any manifest error, the Court further states that Francisco’s proper recourse
would be to take up the case to the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the
Constitution, "(t)he Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members…" The word “sole” emphasizes that only the Tribunal has jurisdiction over
election contests over their respective members which, as worth noting in this case, includes
members of the Senate. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Francisco Chavez’s
petition and must therefore dismiss it for lack of merit.
35. Matalan vs Comelec

Petitioner Norodin M. Matalam and Private Respondent Zacaria A. Candao were both candidates for Governor
of the Province of Maguindanao. Petitioner Matalam challenged before the respective Municipal Boards of
Canvassers ("MBC") the authenticity of the election returns in Datu Piang and Maganoy.

Petitioner contends that the election returns of Datu Piang were falsified and spurious, because they were
prepared notwithstanding the alleged failure to count all the ballots therein. Petitioner asserts that the
counting of votes for 165 precincts inside the old Municipal Building was disrupted and cut short by grenade
explosions which allegedly resulted in chaos and pandemonium.

Issue: W/N the grounds stated by Petitioner is sufficient for a pre-proclmation controversy.
Ruling: No.

Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the resolution of which would compel or
necessitate the Comelec to pierce the veil of election returns which appear to be prima facie regular, on
their face, are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues should be posed and resolved in a
regular election protest.
36. MACABAGO vs COMELEC

FACTS: Petitioner was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers as the winning candidate for the
position of Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur.

Private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC against petitioner and the proclaimed Vice-Mayor
and Municipal Councilors, as well as the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, to annul the
elections and the proclamation of candidates in the said Municipality.

Private respondent alleged that there was a massive substitution of voters, rampant and pervasive
irregularities in voting procedures, and a failure of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) to comply with
Comelec Resolution No. 3743 and the Omnibus Election Code, thus rendering the election process in
those precincts a sham and a mockery and the proclamation of the winning candidates a nullity. Private
respondent further averred that if his petition were to be given due course, he would win.

COMELEC declared that contrary to petitioners’ claims, the petition did not allege a pre-proclamation
controversy. The Commission characterized the petition as one for the annulment of the election or
declaration of failure of election in the municipality.

ISSUE: W/N the grounds alleged by private respondent are proper in a pre-proclamation controversy
RULING: NO. Issues such as fraud or terrorism attendant to the election process, the resolution of which
would compel or necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which appear to be prima
facie regular, on their face, are anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy. Such issues should be posed
and resolved in a regular election protest.

In his petition with the COMELEC, private respondent alleged that fraud and irregularities allegedly
perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals who substituted for the registered voters and voted for the
latter in the subject precincts, in conspiracy with the Board of Election Inspectors, or abetted by the
members thereof, attended the electoral process in the subject precincts. The fraud and the irregularities
catalogued by private respondent required the reception of evidence aliunde. Such grounds are not
proper bases for a pre-proclamation controversy but are appropriate for a regular election contest within
the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

**Aliunde—means from another place or outside source.

37. Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan v. COMELEC

FACTS: Benzonan and COMELEC instituted a pre-proclamation controversy. Benzonan who was a mayoralty
candidate in the Municipality of Glan, Sarangani during 2001 sought to declare null and void the canvass
conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan and to recall the proclamation of petitioners
respectively on the ground that the election returns had been tampered.
The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution finding the proclamations of the winning candidates were declared
null and void.
ISSUE: W/N COMELEC en banc has a jurisdiction over the case.
RULING: YES. The petition filed by private respondent Benzonan, a mayoralty candidate in the Municipality
of Glan, Sarangani, involves a pre-proclamation controversy that requires the exercise of the Comelec’s
quasi-judicial powers, as the illegality of the composition and proceedings of the MBC, including the
falsification of election returns and certificate of canvass, were alleged to be in issue.
38. Navarro vs Comelec

Facts:

Petitioner and Private respondent were candidates for mayor of Santiago City, Isabela in 2001 elections.
The City Board of Canvassers (BOC) convened for the canvassing of the election returns. Petitioner filed before
the BOC a petition 6 to exclude the election returns contained in 9 ballot boxes on the ground that they were
not secured with the required 3 padlocks. The canvassing was suspended. The BOC denied the petition to
exclude the election returns. Petitioner appealed. The BOC declared the formal adjournment of the canvassing
proceedings. The winning candidates for local positions, however, were not proclaimed in view of the pending
appeal of petitioner with the COMELEC.

The COMELEC En Banc ordered the BOC to complete the canvassing of election returns and proclaim all
winning local candidates in Santiago City. Pursuant to such order, winning local candidates were proclaimed
Issue: W/N non-compliance of the canvassing procedure is an illegal proceeding
Ruling:
 No. Non-compliance by a BOC of the prescribed canvassing procedure is not an "illegal proceeding"
under paragraph (a) of Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, given the summary nature of a pre-
proclamation controversy, consistent with the law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as
little as possible. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their
face and the COMELEC as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate the alleged
election irregularities.
39. Mutuc vs Comelec
Facts:
In counting the votes from the various precincts in Makati, the municipal board of canvassers was
confronted with an election return which, while listing the names of the candidates, contained no entry at all
of the votes cast for them. This was the return from precinct 124. As a result, counting had to be stopped.
The board asked the Comelec on November 24 to be allowed to proceed with the proclamation of the winning
candidates, disregarding for this purpose the return from precinct 124, on the claim that as the Comelec's copy
of the return showed that there was a total of only 263 votes cast in that precinct, the results of that election
would not materially be changed by their inclusion.
The Comelec granted the request on the same day and set the proclamation of the winners for the following
day, November 25. Accordingly, the board of canvassers reconvened and proclaimed the respondents elected
to the various elective offices in Makati on the basis of the canvass it had so far made, minus the return from
precinct 124.
Issue:
Whether or not the proclamation is void for failing to include in the canvass returns from precint 124?
Held:
Yes.
A proclamation based on an incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent
proclamation and is an issue that may be brought up in a pre-proclamation controversy. The copies of the
election return in this case contain no entries as to the number of votes received by each candidate. So there
really is no discrepancy, but only a failure to accomplish the form of the return properly. Indeed, what has
been submitted is no return at all. The COMELEC is herby directed: (1) to order the board of inspectors of
Precinct No. 124 of Makati, after due notice to all the candidates, to open the ballot box corresponding to the
said precinct for the purpose of retrieving therefrom the copy of the election return for use in the new canvass
by the municipal board of canvassers, if said copy has been properly accomplished, or, in the event that the
said copy is blank or incomplete, to count all the votes cast in the said precinct and then properly accomplish a
return based on such count; and (2) thereafter to order the MBOC of Makati, without delay and after due
notice to all the candidates, to hold a new canvass of the votes cast in that municipality, and to proclaim the
winning candidates in accordance with the results thereof.
40. Navarro vs Comelec
Facts:
Amelita S. Navarro (petitioner) and Jose C. Miranda (private respondent) were candidates for mayor of
Santiago City, Isabela. Subsequently, petitioner filed before the BOC a petition to exclude the election returns
contained in 9 ballot boxes on the ground that they were not secured with the required padlocks in which BOC
suspended the canvassing but later denied the petition. Petitioner later appealed to Comelec the BOC
resolution in denying her petition. COMELEC En Banc ordered the BOC to complete the canvassing of election
returns and proclaim all winning local candidates in Santiago City. Pursuant to said resolution, the BOC
proclaimed the winning local candidates of Santiago City including herein respondent Miranda who was
proclaimed city mayor. Petitoner filed for MR in COMELEC 2nd division and COMELEC En Banc but was both
denied because "the allegations of the appeal [of petitioner from the BOC Resolution denying the exclusion of
the election returns contained in the contested ballot boxes] do . . . not raise a genuine pre-proclamation
controversy" as she was questioning "the condition of the ballot boxes"
Issue:
Whether or not respondent commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that securing the ballot boxes containing the election returns and the
absence of the required padlocks therein are not part of the of the procedure of the City Board of Canvassers.
Held:
No.
A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on their face and
the Comelec as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate the alleged election
irregularities. A losing candidate’s allegation that the absence of the required number of padlocks puts into
question the integrity of the election returns is not tenable where she did not allege or prove that the election
returns showed on their face tampering or alteration.
41. Bandala vs. Comelec (Material defects in Return)
Facts:
During the canvass of the election returns conducted by the City Board of Canvassers of Oroquieta City,
respondent objected to the inclusion of 80 election returns on the following grounds:
1. That 71 ERs were not secured with inner seals;
2. That 7 ERs do not indicate the party affiliation of the watchers-signatories
3. That 2 ERs have missing pages which contain the list of the local city candidates.

The City BoC over turned the objection of respondent and included in its canvass the contested ERs. Petitioner
was proclaimed the duly elected Mayor. However, the Comelec En Banc reversed this decision and ordered to
nullify the proclamation of the petitioner.
Issue:
W/N the contentions constitutes material defect for it to be excluded.
Ruling:
The absence of signatures and thumb marks rendered the said ERs materially defective, and therefore, proper subject of
a pre-proclamation controversy particularly falling under par (b) of Section 243 of the OEC that states that “(b) The
canvassed ERs are incomplete, contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies
in the same returns or in another authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this Code.”
 The Supreme Court had the occasion to state that lack of inner paper seals in the election returns does not justify their
exclusion from canvassing and that such is not proper subject of pre-proclamation controversy.

42. RAYMOND P. ESPIDOL vs COMELEC, WILFREDO TABAG G.R. No. 164922 (2005)
FACTS:
Petitioner Raymond P. Espidol and private respondent Wilfredo L. Tabag were rival candidates for
Mayor of the Municipality of Ramon, Isabela. De Guzman reports that just after the adjournment of
the canvassing proceedings, he and his group of tabulators were harassed and intimidated by allies
and political supporters of petitioner Espidol. Hence requests canvassing venue be transferred to
Manila. This was denied. MBC resumed canvassing. Tabag sought the exclusion of certain precints on
the grounds that: he security envelopes containing the election returns did not have the proper seals
as required by the OEC, he election returns did not bear the signature of the chairman of the Board
of Election Inspectors (BEI) as required by the same law, and the election returns did not have the
thumbprints of the members of the BEI.

ISSUE: WON the grounds raised by Tabag rendered the election returns materially defective, hence
proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy?

HELD:
Yes. The entry of votes in words and figures for each candidate shall be closed with the signature and
the clear imprint of the thumbmark of the right hand of all the members, likewise to be affixed in full
view of the public. Consequently, the absence of these signatures and thumbmarks rendered the
said election returns materially defective and, therefore, proper subject of a pre-proclamation
controversy particularly falling under paragraph (b) of Section 243 of the OEC.
43. Cerbo vs Comelec

Petitioners Bienvenido A. Cerbo, Jr., Angelo O. Montilla, and Geronimo P. Arzagon were candidates for
representative, governor and vice-governor, respectively of Sultan Kudarat. Respondents were petitioners’
respective opponents for the same positions. During the provincial canvassing of the Municipal Certificates of
Canvass. Petitioners filed with the PBOC a "Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors and/or to Exclude
Certificates of Canvass, PBOC verbally denied & no appeal was filed. The PBOC thus proclaimed respondents.
Later, petitioners filed with the COMELEC a "Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors and Annulment of
Proclamation" 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 petition for correction of manifest errors.

Issue: W/N proclamation of respondents was surreptitious, haphazard and illegal

Ruling: No.
Even if 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 petitioner’s similar petition filed with the
latter, its dismissal by the COMELEC is in order.

N.B. Reasons (not in book)

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.
44. Balindong vs. Comelec

Facts:
Anwar Balindong , a candidate for Mayor of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, seeks to set aside the Resolution of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) en banc ordering the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) to immediately reconvene, totally exclude
from canvass the election return for a certain precinct and count eighty-eight (88) votes in the election return for another
precinct, not in favor of Anwar but another mayoralty candidate by the name of Amir-Oden Balindong.

He alleged that because the nature of questioning the exclusion of such tampered or falsified returns is a pre proclamation
controversy, COMELEC en banc should have not acted on it on first instance but referred it to it’s division. Thus Comelec en
banc had no jurisdiction over the same.

Aklima insists that the COMELEC en banc had jurisdiction to hear and decide the consolidated cases

Issue: Whether or not the issue of a tampered or falsified returns are issues allowed in a pre-proclamation controversy
thus rendering Comelec en banc withot jurisdiction to entertain it on first instance?

Ruling:

Yes. Nevertheless, the consolidated cases retained their pre-proclamation character. As noted earlier, tampered or
falsified election returns are among the issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy .The COMELEC
itself confirmed this characterization. (Thus it was incumbent upon the COMELEC to refer the consolidated cases
to a division thereof. As the COMELEC failed to do so, we hold that it acted without jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of the consolidated cases at the first instance. Thus, the assailed Resolution is null and void.)
45. PACIS V. COMELEC
FACTS:
Anatacio Negre was Mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan. His proclamation was contested because
some of the election returns contained erasures and superimpositions. In addition, there was a reported
shooting incident in the vicinity of polling places Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 22 located in the school building at
Namuac barrio where then Vice Mayor Manuel Franco was killed. The inspectors had fled and left open and
unsealed some of the election documents, ballot boxes and election paraphernalia. It was discovered the
following day that some election returns were either tampered or sealed or placed inside the envelopes, and
the tally sheets and tally board were all missing.
Issue:
Whether or not it is within the power of the Comelec to issue an order to ascertain the existence of
the genuine, authenticated and unhampered election returns.
Ruling: Yes
Where the election returns are tampered, it is within the power of the Comelec to issue such an order
as would ascertain the existence of the genuine, authentic and unhampered election returns. It should inquire
into the copies of the returns for the provincial treasurer. If these copies are not authentic it should look into
the copies of the returns in the ballot boxes. Every effort be strained to ascertain the existence of serviceable
returns from the precincts in question and resort to the copies of the returns in the hands of the provincial
treasurer and, if necessary, those in the ballot boxes, is justified. The returns from these precincts not
canvassed are vital to the political fortunes of the contending candidates, and ascertainment of the results
thereof should not so easily be done away with. The Comelec has ample authority to direct the board of
canvassers to include in the canvass returns from the questioned precincts. It should summon the members of
the board of inspectors, take evidence and ascertain which are the genuine returns, then it should direct the
board to use these returns in the canvass of the votes.

46. Lee vs. Comelec Gr 157004

Facts: Petitioner Sally A. Lee (Lee) and respondent Leovic R. Dioneda (Dioneda) were
candidates for Mayor of Sorsogon City. During the canvassing of the election returns,
counsel for Dioneda moved for the exclusion of Election Return from Barangay
Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City on the ground that no entries were made for the position of
congressman and that Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) watchers were utilized to
fill up election returns. The Board of Canvassers (BOC) ruled in favor of Lee on the
ground that the questioned election return was clear and regular on its face, the BOC
then proclaimed Lee as the winning candidate for Mayor of Sorsogon City. Dioneda then
filed a petition to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for annulment of
Lee‘s proclamation and the exclusion of the questioned election return. The COMELEC
Second Division granted Dioneda‘s petition and accordingly excluded the
questioned return from the canvass and nullified the proclamation of Lee. Lee filed
a Motion for Reconsideration and argues that as the case at bar is a pre-
proclamation controversy, the COMELEC is ―restricted to an examination of the
election returns and is without jurisdiction to go [beyond] or behind them
and investigate election irregularities, citing the case of Loong v. Commission on
Elections. But was denied by the COMELEC En Banc.

Issue: WON the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in annulling Lee’s proclamation.

Ruling: Yes. The doctrine cited by Lee presupposes that the returns ―appear to
be authentic and duly accomplished on their face. Where there is a prima facie
showing that the return is not genuine, several entries having been omitted in
the questioned election return, the doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC may
determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the questioned election return.
47. Baterina vs Comelec 205 SCRA 1 (Tampered of falsified returns)

Facts: Petitioner was a candidate for Governor of Ilocos Sur in the special local elections held on January 1988.
In the course of the canvass proceedings, verbal objections were raised by the petitioner as regards certain
election returns. The grounds raised by petitioner for the exclusion of the election returns from the canvassing
refer to the failure to close the entries with the signatures of the election inspectors; lack of inner and outer
paper seals; canvassing by the BOARD of copies not intended for it; lack of time and date of receipt by the
BOARD of election returns; lack of signatures of petitioners' watchers; and lack of authority of the person
receiving the election returns. Subsequently, petitioner submitted to the BOARD their objections in written
form. COMELEC en banc issued a resolution against the petitioners.

Issue: Should the assailed election returns be excluded?

Held: No. While the aforesaid grounds may, indeed, involve a violation of the rules governing the preparation
and delivery of election returns for canvassing, they do not necessarily affect the authenticity and
genuineness of the subject election returns as to warrant their exclusion from the canvassing. The grounds
for objection to the election returns made by petitioners are clearly defects in form insufficient to support a
conclusion that the election returns were tampered with or spurious. "A conclusion that an election return is
obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached
with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof" (Estrada vs. Navarro, L-28340, 29 December
1967, 21 SCRA 1514). It is only when the election returns are palpably irregular that they may be rejected
(Mutuc vs. Commission on Elections, L-28517, 21 February 1968, 22 SCRA 662). On the basis of formal defects
alone, such palpable irregularity can not be said to have been established herein.

48 Ocampo vs Comelec
Facts: Ocampo and Salalila were mayoralty candidates for Sta. Rita, Pampanga. Petitioner filed for the exclusion
of 2 returns on the grounds that they were manufactured against him. Comelec 2 nd Division ruled infavor of
Ocampo and suspended the proclamation of Salalila, but upon appeal, the enbanc reversed the decision on
the ground that the alleged superimpositions in the returns were actually correction of entries by the BEI.
Ocampo now files a certiorari petition against Coomelec.

Issue: Won the canvassers must look beyond the face of the returns to secure the counting of votes.

Held: No. For as long as the election returns which on their face appear regular and wanting of any physical
signs of tampering, alteration or other similar vice, such election returns cannot just be unjustifiably
excluded. To look beyond or behind these returns is not a proper issue in a pre-proclamation controversy as
in the case at bar
49. Taguiam v COMELEC GR No. 184801 (2009)
Facts: Petitioner Jonas Taguiam and private respondent Anthony Tudao were candidates for Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Petitioner was proclaimed by the City BOC as the 12th ranking and
winning candidate with 10,981 votes. Private respondent obtained 10,971 votes, and ranked 13th. Six days
after proclamation, private respondent filed with COMELEC a petition for correction of manifest errors in the
Election Returns and Statement of Votes for 27 precincts and for the annulment of the proclamation of the
affected winning candidate. This was granted by the COMELEC and it was found that nine votes should be
added to the total number of votes garnered by private respondent; while 24 votes should be deducted from
the total number of votes obtained by petitioner. Thus, private respondent’s votes was 10,980, while
petitioner’s was 10,957. As such, private respondent was rightfully the 12th winning candidate.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC was correct in taking cognizance of private respondent’s petition for
correction of manifest errors in the Election Returns and Statement of Votes in this case
Ruling: Yes. Records show that petitioner was declared the 12th winning candidate based on SOVPs
containing mathematical and clerical errors. The total number of votes in the SOVPs of the identified
precincts are markedly different from the votes tabulated in their respective ERs, i.e., petitioner was given
additional votes, while private respondent’s votes were reduced, which altered the outcome of the election.
Petitioner was declared the last winning candidate for the position of Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Tuguegarao City, instead of private respondent. In Torres v. Commission on Elections, the Court reiterated
that while the remedy of the losing party is an election protest after his opponent has already been
proclaimed as winning candidate, such recourse 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.
50. Duremdes v Comelec 178 SCRA 746

Facts: Petitioner and private respondent Cipriano PENAFLORIDA and Rufino Palabrica ran
for Vice-Governor of Iloilo. PENAFLORIDA objected 110 election returns from various
precincts. The Board overruled the same because they were not timely filed. The Board
ordered the inclusion of the questioned election returns. PENAFLORIDA filed with the
COMELEC an "Appeal by Way of a Petition for Review," for the exclusion of the
questioned election returns, for PENAFLORIDA's proclamation, a Petition seeking the
annulment of election returns and the suspension of the proclamation of any candidate.
Despite of such, the Board proclaimed DUREMDES as the elected Vice- Governor. The
board made the proclamation upon DUREMDES' Manifestation and Motion, that the
contested returns will not adversely affect the uncontested results because of the
absolute certainty that Duremdes obtained the highest number of votes,
whether or not the contested votes were excluded." PENAFLORIDA filed with the
COMELEC a Supplemental Petition charging DUREMDES was proclaimed "on the
basis of increased votes in the unofficial & separately tallied Statement of
Votes, more than what was reflected in the Election Returns. COMELEC (Second
Division) issued a Resolution, sustaining the rulings of the BOC on PENAFLORIDA's
objections as well as DUREMDES' proclamation. PENAFLORIDA moved for reconsideration
and elevated the case to the COMELEC en banc.PENAFLORIDA filed a Motion to Suspend
Implementation of the Second Division pending resolution of his Motion for
Reconsideration, which suspension was granted by the COMELEC. Petitioner’s
proclamation has been nullified by the COMELEC. DUREMDES avails of this
recourse.

Issue: W/N the nullification of the petitioner’s proclamation was proper?

Ruling: YES. The COMELEC has power to order a correction of the Statement of
votes to make it conform to the election returns. Under the circumstances,
therefore, and considering that any error in the Statement of Votes would affect
the proclamation made on the basis thereof, and primordially, in order to
determine the true will of the electorate, the COMELEC Decision ordering the
Board of Canvassers to reconvene and prepare a new Statement of Votes and
Certificate of Canvass should be upheld.

It is true that, before the Board of Canvassers, PENAFLORIDA did not raise in issue the
matter of the discrepancies between the number of votes appearing in the Statement of
Votes and that in the Election Returns. As a matter of fact that matter is not even listed
as one of the issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversies. Nonetheless,
as aptly stated in the assailed COMELEC en banc Decision:

“Indeed, errors in the Statement of Votes do not indubitably appear to be issues that
may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus
Election Code. In this respect, the law is silent as to when the same may be
raised. We are, however, not unmindful of the fact that the statement of votes
supports the certificate of canvass and shall be the basis of proclamation (Sec.
231, paragraph 2). Consequently, any error in the Statement of Votes would affect the
proclamation made on the basis thereof. The true will of the electorate may thus be not
fully and faithfully reflected by the proclamation”
Over and above all else, the determination of the true will of the electorate
should be the paramount consideration.

51. 271 SCRA 733 Apr. 18, 1997

Norodin M. Matalam v. COMELEC

FACTS: Matalam and PR Candao are gubernatorial candidates of Maguindanao. Matalam contested the
returns of two municipalities in which he only received 3.6k votes while PR received 44k. He also alleged
that the counting of the votes inside the municipal building was cut short by grenade explosions.

MBC only noted his objections, PBC rejected his pleas and included the challenged certificates of canvass.
Matalam filed a petition to exclude such certificates. During pendency of petition, PR was proclaimed.
COMELEC 2nd div. nullified proclamation but set aside the same later. It held that in the absence of a strong
evidence establishing the spuriousness of the returns, the basic rule that the election returns shall be
accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the count of the votes for canvassing and
proclamation purposes must necessarily prevail.

COMELEC en banc denied MR. Matalam filed petition for certiorari, seeking to annul PR’s proclamation.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC should have granted the motion for technical examination to determine whether
the signatures and thumbmarks in the certificates belong to the voters therein.

HELD: No. The petition must fail because it effectively implores the Court to disregard the statutory norm
that pre-proclamation controversies are to be resolved in a summary proceeding. What petitioner is
asking for necessitates the full reception of evidence aliunde[not found in the document itself], and the
meticulous examination thereof. This contradicts the summary nature of pre-proclamation controversies.
The COMELEC as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged
election irregularities.

52. Sebastian vs comelec

Facts:

Petitioner June Genevieve Sebastian was the mayoralty candidate of the Reporma Party in Sto. Tomas, Davao
del Norte. Petitioner Dario Romano was her running mate. Private respondent Salvador Royo was the
mayoralty candidate of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, while private respondent Eric Estela was his candidate for vice
mayor.

petitioners sought the exclusion from the canvass of several election returns from certain precincts. Petitioners
claimed that the election returns from these areas were prepared under "extreme duress, threat, intimidation
and political pressure and influence.". Petitioners also manifested that four election returns were missing.

The Municipal Board of Canvassers denied the petition, they filed three separate appeals with the COMELEC,
the COMELEC Second Division, ruling on the remaining consolidated appeals in a decision promulgated on
August 14, 1998, ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the exclusion of 25 election returns from the canvass
of votes in Sto. Tomas.

On August 18, 1998, private respondent Royo filed a motion for reconsideration of said resolution. The
COMELEC en banc, as earlier stated, reversed the ruling of the COMELEC Second Division.

Issue: W/N the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in its failure to consider what they claim to be
evidence of undue influence, extreme pressure, threat, and coercion that attended the preparation,
transmission, custody and appreciation by the Board of Election Inspectors of the contested election returns.

Ruling: No. This petition stemmed from a pre-proclamation controversy. In a long line of cases, we have
consistently held that a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to an examination of the election returns on
their face. The COMELEC as a general rule need not go beyond the face of the returns and investigate alleged
election irregularities. We see no reason to depart from this rule in this petition. In our view, there is no
exceptional circumstance present in this controversy similar to that proved in the Antonio case, aforecited,
where the COMELEC as well as the Court found "precipitate canvassing, terrorism, lack of sufficient notice to
the Board, and disregard of manifest irregularities in the face of the questioned returns" to justify the
summary annulment of the canvass and the annulment of petitioner Antonios proclamation. Rather, we are
guided here by the holding of the Court in the case of Matalam, in Maguindanao, where it is said:

B: "...Because what [petitioner] is asking for necessarily postulates a full reception of evidence aliunde and
the meticulous examination of voluminous election documents, it is clearly anathema to a pre-proclamation
controversy which, by its very nature, is to be heard summarily and decided on as promptly as possible."

To require the COMELEC to examine the circumstances surrounding the preparation of election returns would
run counter to the rule that a pre-proclamation controversy should be summarily decided.

53. Sison v Comelec

Facts:

It appears that while the election returns were being canvassed by the Quezon City Board of Canvassers,
petitioner commenced suit before the COMELEC by filing a petition seeking to suspend the canvassing of votes
and/or proclamation in Quezon City and to declare a failure of elections. The said petition was supposedly filed
pursuant to Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code on the ground of massive and orchestrated fraud and acts
analogous thereto which occurred after the voting and during the preparation of election returns. Petitioner
cited specific instances such as: lack of inner seal, falsified, altered, suspicious persons sneaking, military raid,
harassment and etc. which ultimately led to affect the appreciation of election returns which is allegedly
tantamount to duress, threats and coercion On June 22, 1998, the COMELEC promulgated its challenged
resolution dismissing the petition before it on the ground (1) that the allegations therein were not supported
by sufficient evidence, and (2) that the grounds recited were not among the pre-proclamation issues set fourth
in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166.
Issue:

Whether or not the Comelec has to examine the circumstances surrounding the preparation of election
returns and what is the reason behind the limited issues in section 243

Ruling:

No. Because it would run counter to the rule that a pre proclamation controversy should be summarily
dismissed. The reason underlying the delimitation both of substantive ground and procedure is the policy of
the election law that pre-proclamation controversies should be summarily decided, consistent with the law's
desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. That is why such questions which
require more deliberate and necessarily longer consideration, are left for examination in the corresponding
election protest. Where the resolution of the issues raised would require the COMELEC “to pierce the veil” of
election returns that appear prima facie regular, the remedy is a regular election protest wherein the parties
may litigate all the legal and factual issues raised by them in as much detail as they may deem necessary or
appropriate.” Petitioners have not precisely demonstrated how the preparation and appreciation of election
returns were adversely affected by “harassment of petitioner’s supporters” “midnight convoy of armed in
motorcycles and raids by the military in different houses.
54. Salih vs. COMELEC
279 SCRA 19 (1997)
FACTS:Petitioner Pendatun Salih, private respondent Fawzi Alonzo and private
respondent Omarhassim Abdulmunap ran as candidates for the position of Mayor of the
Municipality of Tandubas, Province of Tawi-Tawi.
Five of the election returns from the said municipality were contested by the contending
parties. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi ruled, however, to
canvass these contested election returns on the ground that no sufficient proof was
proffered to warrant their exclusion as defective or fraudulent returns. Just the same,
said board did not proclaim any winner, its ruling having been raised to the Commission
on Elections (hereafter, COMELEC) on appeal and the results of the elections being
affected by the inclusion or exclusion of the questioned returns. The assailed resolution
ruled to exclude the returns from these precincts premised on the findings that there was
no actual voting in the said precinct, or, if ever, there was minimal attendance of voters,
and that the election return itself was prepared by the followers of candidate
Alonzo. Also, the returns were obviously manufactured or were falsified, and there was
absent the required data as to the number of voters who actually voted.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC should exclude such returns in a pre-proclamation
controversy
RULING: No. COMELEC herein “could not justifiably exclude said returns on the
occasion of a pre-proclamation controversy whose office is limited to
incomplete, falsified, or materially defective returns which appear as such on
their face.It held that returns will not be excluded on the mere allegations that the
returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face, appear regular and
wanting of any physical signs of tampering, alteration, or other similar vice. Thus, if there
had been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal through
the falsification of the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an
election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy.

55. PACIS v. COMELEC

Facts:

Primarily to be tested in this case is the validity of the last canvass in Precincts 19, 21 and 22 in Mira, Cagayan.

The returns in the above-mentioned precincts were contested as a result of the shooting incident on
November 15, 1967 in the vicinity of polling places Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 22 located in the school building at
Namuac barrio where then Vice Mayor Manuel Franco was killed. The inspectors had fled and left open and
unsealed some of the election documents, ballot boxes and election paraphernalia. It was discovered the
following day that some election returns were either tampered or sealed or placed inside the envelopes, and
the tally sheets and tally board were all missing.

Petitioner filed a petition praying that the board shoud disregard the votes cast in precincts where the returns
are doctored.

Issue:

WON the Board should right away disregard the votes cast in precincts where the returns are doctored.

Ruling:

NO.

While the canvassing board will not be compelled to canvass returns which are obviously manufactured,
however, this does not mean that the Board and COMELEC should right away disregard the votes cast in
precincts where the returns are doctored. It is the duty of the Board to report the matter to the COMELEC.

The board's decision is open to review by Comelec which has the power to investigate irregularities and to act
upon the propriety or legality of the canvass made by the board. 8 But, it is to be emphasized, this power to
reject returns must be exercised with "extreme caution". Popular will must not be suppressed at the slightest
cause.

56. Demafiles vs. Commission on Elections

Facts:
Demafiles wired the Commission on Elections, protesting the board’s action of rejection of the return
from precinct 7 and the subsequent proclamation of Galido as mayor of Municipality of Sebaste in Antique
province and challenging the right of two board members, Julito Moscoso and Quirico Escanñ o, to sit,
considering that they were reelectionists.
Issue: WON the BOC committed GAD for excluding said returns.
Ruling:
Yes. It is the ministerial function of a board of canvassers to count the results as they appear in the returns
which on their face do not reveal any irregularities or falsities. The return in this case shows nothing
on its face from which the canvassers might conclude that it does not speak the truth. It is only
when it is compared with the certificate of the election registrar that a discrepancy appears as to
the number of registered voters. The return therefore is by no means “obviously manufactured” so
as to justify its exclusion.
57. Anni vs Izquierdo
57 SCRA 692 (1974)

FACTS:
Two petitions were filed with Comelec involving the proclamation of the winning candidates for provincial
officials of Sulu. The Court sets aside the questioned Comelec resolution which ordered the outright exclusion
and rejection of the returns of 89 precincts from 7 Sulu municipalities as manufactured returns (because of
excess votes) and excluded 5,000 votes for petitioner notwithstanding the existence of actual voting therein
and their having been duly verified by Comelec examination of the registration and voting records to have
been validly cast by registered voters, which were more than sufficient to maintain petitioner’s margin of
victory over respondent for the third and last provincial board member seat of Sulu.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the conclusion that the election is obviously manufactured and disregarded in canvass must be
approached with convincing proof.
RULING:
Yes. A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be
disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution, and only upon the most convincing
proof. Any plausible explanation, one which is acceptable to a reasonable man in the light of experience and of
probabilities of the situation should suffice to avoid outright nullification with the resulting disenfranchisement
of those who exercised their right of suffrage.
58. Lagumbay vs Comelec 16 SCRA 175 (1996)

Facts: Petitioner prays for revision of an order of the Commission on Elections declining to reject the
returns of certain precincts of some municipalities in Mindanao. The Constitution provides for review by
this Court of the rulings of the said Commission.

The matter being urgent, and having reached the conclusion that the returns of certain questioned
precincts were "obviously manufactured" within the meaning of pertinent jurisprudence, particularly
Mitchell v. Stevens, the Comelec issued a short resolution upholding the Commission's power and duty to
reject the returns of about fifty precincts. It appearing therein that — contrary to all statistical
probabilities — in the first set, in each precinct the number of registered voters equalled the number of
ballots and the number of votes reportedly cast and tallied for each and every candidate of the Liberal
Party, the party in power; whereas, all the candidates of the Nacionalista Party got exactly zero; and in the
second set, — again contrary to all statistical probabilities — all the reported votes were for candidates of
the Liberal Party, all of whom were credited with exactly the same number of votes in each precinct,
ranging from 240 in one precinct to 650 in another precinct; whereas, all the candidates of the
Nacionalista Party were given exactly zero in all said precincts. Comelec opined that the election result to
said precincts as reported, was utterly improbable and clearly incredible.

Issue: WON Fraud was committed in the election.

Ruling: Yes. It is not likely, in the ordinary course of things, that all the electors of one precinct would, as
one man, vote for all the eight candidates of the Liberal Party, without giving a single vote to one of the
eight candidates of the Nacionalista Party. Such extraordinary coincidence was quite impossible to
believe, knowing that the Nacionalista Party had and has a nationwide organization, with branches in
every province, and was, in previous years, the party in power in these islands.These returns were
obviously false or fabricated — prima facie. Where there is a uniformity of tally in favor of candidates
belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of the opposing candidates, such as to make
the fraud “palpable from the return itself,” there is no other reasonable conclusion than that the
returns were obviously manufactured, contrary to all statistical probabilities and were as utterly
improbable and clearly incredible as to win the seepstakes ten times.

59. ILLARDE VS COMELEC

FACTS:

Comelec certified candidates received the highest number of votes cast in the senatorial elections, petitioner
was in the 10th place. The COMELEC, however, did not proclaim respondent Tamano (8 th place) pending finality
of its unanimous resolution, and denying the petition filed with it by petitioner Ilarde to exclude from the
canvass the returns from various municipalities all over the Philippines.

Hence the present petition seeking the exclusion of the questioned returns for being statistically improbable
while admitting that they do not fall squarely within the doctrine of statistical improbability.

ISSUE: Whether or not the returns should be excluded

RULING: NO

The thrust of all the subsequent cases is to restrict the doctrine of the Lagumbay case to the unique uniformity
of tally in favor of candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of the opposing candidates
in, the same locality, such as to make the fraud "palpable from the return itself ... (and) there is no reason to
accept it and give it prima facie value", and leading to no other reasonable conclusion than that the returns
were obviously manufactured because they were as "utterly improbable and clearly incredible" as "to win the
sweepstakes ten times." Here, the citing of certain instances where Tamano obtained 100% of the votes cast or
an overwhelming majority thereof in his bailiwicks in Mindanao as against a much lesser number of votes cast
for his opponents is inadequate to justify the exclusion of the returns as obviously manufactured for reasons of
statistical improbability.

60. Sangki vs Comelec 21 SCRA 1392

Facts: Petitioner Abdullah Sangki, official candidate of the Nacionalista Party for Governor seek the rejection
of the election returns from all the eighteen (18) precincts of the municipality of Pagalungan and eleven (11)
precincts of the fifty-three (53) precincts of the municipality of Pikit, both of the said province of Northern
Cotabato. Petitioner's trenchant claim is that in all the eighteen precincts of Pagalungan, the election returns
reported zero votes for him at the same time that these returns showed that all the votes counted were in favor of
respondent. Pendatun; that in twelve of these eighteen precincts, all the votes actually cast were tallied in favor
of respondent Pandantun Petitioner prays that a writ of preliminary injunction issue to restrain respondent
provincial board of canvassers (a) from including in its canvass the election returns from all the questioned
precincts; and (b) from proclaiming respondent Salipada K. Pendatun, official candidate of the Liberal Party for
Governor, from being proclaimed Governor-elect.Comelec issued the corresponding restraining order in
petitioner's favor. Intervenors Constancia Saludo and Jose Torres also sought preliminary injunction. Their
petition came late. For, the winning candidates (except for Governor) were proclaimed before respondent board
of canvassers could be restrained.

The case is now before us for resolution, after hearing, on the preliminary injunction issue.

Issue: WoN the preliminary injunction should be granted despite using the doctrine of statistical improbability.
Ruling: No. The factual background of this case suggests that we should not unduly expand the reach of the
statistically improbable doctrine carved out of the facts obtaining in Lagumbay. Rather, we should say that
respondent board of canvassers — sustained by Comelec — in refusing to reject canvass of the returns from
the disputed precincts, properly performed the functions allocated to it by law. It did well in not overstepping
its authority.

61. Alonto vs Comelec

Facts: The petitioners, Liberal candidates for provincial offices in the elections of November 14,
1967, resorted to this Court in quest of writs of certiorari and mandamus to reverse the decision of
respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec for short) of December 19, 1967, dismissing their
petition for permanent suspension of the canvass of the votes cast for candidates to provincial offices
in various precincts in 27 municipalities of Lanao del Sur for the rejection of the returns from said
municipalities, and for suspension of the proclamation of the results. They also ask the resolution of
the same Commission issued on January 2, 1968, rejecting their motion for reconsideration be set
aside.

Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, the petitioners elevated the case to this Court
claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections in refusing to grant
their petition. In this Court they reiterate that the questioned returns should have been ordered
rejected by the Provincial Boards of Canvassers, for the following reasons:
 I. Because the canvass of the votes and proclamation were made not in the polling places
but outside of the same, in the PC camps, and not on election day, November 14, 1967 but
three days thereafter (November 17) at the earliest.chanro

Issue: Whether or not the Excess of votes cast does not make the returns obviously manufactured

Ruling: No. "Statistical improbability" rule, explained.—The alleged excess of votes cast
(detailed and enumerated in the petition) do not necessarily support the conclusion that the returns
are obviously manufactured for reasons of statistical improbability. There is here no uniformity of
tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of the opposing
candidates that led this Court to reject the returns in the Lagumbay case. Alonto vs. Commission on
Elections, 22 SCRA 878, No. L-28490 February 28, 1968

law library
62. UNA KIBAD VS COMELEC
FACTS: Petitioner is the Liberal Party candidate for mayor of such municipality, with respondent
Abdulmadid Maruhom Panondiongan as his opponent from the Nacionalista Party in the November
14, 1967 elections. On November 22, 1967, respondent Commission on Elections, upon motion of
petitioner, issued a directive suspending the canvassing and proclamation of the winning mayoralty
candidate in Tubaran, Lanao del Sur, which was, however, modified in the resolution dated November
30, 1967, lifting the suspension of the canvassing only, but leaving the suspension on the
proclamation undisturbed.
hen on December 8, 1967, he filed an amended petition before the respondent Commission praying
that the canvassing be annulled in the said municipality, and a re-canvassing be made of the election
returns, but excluding from the said re-canvassing, the election returns in precincts 10, 11, 12 and 13,
the ground being that the voting in such precincts "was vitiated by frauds, terrorism, and other
irregularities," resulting in the returns having the character of being "manufactured" and, therefore,
should not be counted.
Respondent Commission of January 6, 1968, while admitting most of the facts alleged, specifically
denied the alleged excess votes by citing figures from certified photostatic copies of election returns
to show that petitioner's allegation to that effect was unfounded, noted that what is being contested in
this petition is the office of mayor, not that of senator nor that of councilor, and emphasized that in not
one of the three precincts did any candidate obtain a zero vote.
Issue: Whether or not the returns are obviously manufactured
Ruling: Yes. Where there exists uniformity of tallies in favor of candidates belonging to one party, and
the systematic blanking of the opposing candidates. the election returns may be rejected under the
Lagumbay doctrine (L-25444, Jan. 31, 1966). Thus, where all the eight candidates of one party
garnered all the votes, each of them receiving exactly the same number; whereas all the eight
candidates of the other party got precisely nothing, commonsense dictates that such returns are
“obviously manufactured” and should be rejected under said doctrine. But where, as in the case at
bar. not one of the three questioned precincts did any candidate obtain a zero vote, the Lagumbay
doctrine would certainly find no application.
63. Ututalum vs Comelec
Petitioner Ututalum and private respondent, Arden S. Anni, candidates in the last 30 May 1987 Congressional
elections for the Second District of Sulu. during the canvass of votes, Petitioner Ututalum, without availing of
verbal objections, filed written objections to the returns from Siasi on the ground that they "appear to be
tampered with or falsified" owing to the "great excess of votes" appearing in said returns. He then claimed
that, multiplying the 42 precincts of Siasi by 300 voters per precinct, there should have been only 12,600
registered voters and not 36,663 voters who cast their votes. He then prayed for the exclusion from the
canvass of any election returns from Siasi.

Issue: W/N the returns were valid.

Ruling: No.

Returns are obviously manufactured where they show a great excess of votes over what could have been
legally cast.
64. TAGORANAO vs COMELEC

FACTS: It has been established thru the investigation of the Commission attorneys sent to Lanao del Sur
that there were frauds and terrorism, shooting and explosion of dynamite in the area where this polling
place is located. The official ballots intended to be used in said precinct were snatched and taken away by
the followers of mayoralty candidate Naga Tagoranao, were accomplished outside of the polling places,
and were later on stuffed and placed inside a kerosene can which was used as a ballot box in lieu of the
ballot box supplied by the Commission. There is no evidence to show that the use of the kerosene can was
with prior approval of the Commission or any of its authorized representatives nor was it later confirmed
by the Commission.

The election return of Precinct 2 is blank with respect to the data on the number of voters who registered
and number of voters who actually voted, as well as on the data on the number of ballots received by the
Board of Inspectors and the number of ballots used in the voting, although, the plebiscite return of
Precinct 2 prepared by the same Board of Inspectors states that the number of voters who registered is
375 and the same number of voters voted. On the basis of 375 as the number of voters registered in the
precinct, there are still more votes credited to candidates for mayor, because, as stated in the decision of
the Commission, a total of 389 votes were credited for all the candidates for mayor or an excess of 14
votes over the number of voters registered, assuming that all said voters voted.

There is one more patent fact appearing on the face of said election return of Precinct 2 which shows that
this election return is obviously manufactured, namely, the votes for the 9 senators as they are hereunder
reproduced.

ISSUE: W/N the election return from Precinct 2 can be stigmatized as "obviously manufactured"

RULING: YES. There are nine senatorial candidates who received votes ranging from 300 to 375, or a total
number of votes credited for these nine candidates of 3,265. But the maximum total number of votes that
could be cast by, the 375 voters, assuming that all of them voted and that each of them cast his vote for
eight candidates for senators, will be only 3,000 votes. But here, the total number of votes credited for the
aforesaid nine candidates for senator is 3,265, thereby producing an excess of 265 votes credited for
senator. The foregoing facts appearing on the face of said election return itself show that the election
return is obviously manufactured.

65. ANNI v IZQUIERDO

FACTS: Comelec issued a resolution which ordered the exclusion and rejection of the returns of 89 precincts
from 7 Sulu municipalities as "manufactured returns" (because of excess votes) and thereby excluded over
5,000 votes for petitioner notwithstanding the admitted existence of actual voting therein and their having
been duly verified by the Comelec examination of the registration and voting records to have been validly cast
by the duly registered voters, which if not arbitrarily rejected, were much more than sufficient to maintain
petitioner’s margin of victory over respondent for the third and last provincial board member seat of Sulu.
ISSUE: W/N the Comelec resolution should be set aside.
RULING: YES. Where the votes cast for a candidate are “greatly excessive” in comparison with his maximum
possible number of votes, this justifies the rejection of the returns. Where a candidate received 14,195 votes
in the 147 precincts involved and his maximum possible number of votes was 10, 863, of which 5,407 were
positively identified as valid votes cast by the duly registered voters and the remaining 6,525 votes on which
experts could not give an opinion must also be counted concededly as valid votes for him the differential of
3,332 votes cannot be said to be “greatly excessive” and justify the rejection of the returns.
66. Anni vs Rasul
Facts:
Disputed in the case at bar are the results of the election for the three (3) members of the provincial
board. Incidentally, the said 1971 elections held in Sulu were noteworthy in that so far, the Comelec has only
authorized the proclamation of the winning candidate for governor of Sulu, while the winning candidates for
vice-governor and the three provincial board members have not yet been proclaimed. Hence, the incumbent
vice-governor and three board members are all hold-overs still of the previous elections held in 1967.

Respondent petitioned Comelec to direct the canvassing board to elevate for review all the contested
election returns. Petitioners however instead filed a pleading denominated manifestation and motion asking
that Comelec also order the examination of the precinct books of seventy-five (75) precincts in ten (10)
municipalities therein enumerated, accompanied by affidavits purportedly showing prima facie cases in
twenty-five (25) of said precincts, and that it thereafter direct the exclusion of the returns therein as spurious
returns. This motion was denied by the comelec.

Issue: W/N PRE-PROCLAMATION PROCEEDINGS QUESTION REGARDING FALSIFIED AND TAMPERED RETURNS
AND THEIR NON-INCLUSION IN THE CANVASS SHOULD BE ORIGINALLY RAISED BEFORE THE BOARD OF
CANVASSERS

Ruling:

Yes. Comelec committed no error in denying petitioners’ belated motion for an examination of the
voting records in the 75 precincts now questioned by petitioners, when they never questioned them in the first
instance during the canvassing before the provincial canvassing board. As has been time and again stated by
the Court. "It is well settled that the question whether certain returns are falsified or have been tampered with
and should not be included in the canvass, must first be raised before the board of canvassers, subject to
appeal from its decision to the COMELEC."

67. Velayo vs Comelec

Facts:
Petitioner Arthur V. Velayo and private respondent Ernesto Natividad were among the candidates for mayor of
Gapan Nueva Ecija. Private respondent orally sought the exclusion of Election Return on 3 precints on the
ground that it is incomplete and contains material defects. Private respondent filed 3 more cases before the
COMELEC without giving notice of appeal to the petitioner. All his petitions were denied by COMELEC en banc.
On June 25, 1998, the private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that the Order of
dismissal is contrary to law and the evidence. Again, petitioner was not given a copy of the motion. Comelec
en banc ruled in favor of respondent and annulled the proclamation of petitioner. The Solicitor General agreed
with the petitioner and opined that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it issued the impugned
resolution.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in annulling the proclamation of the
petitioner.
Held:
Yes.
Pursuant to R.A. No. 7166, Sec. 20, pre-proclamation controversies must be disposed of summarily by
the Comelec on the basis of the records and evidence adduced in the Board of Canvassers . In the case at bar,
it does not clearly appear that the Comelec annulled the proclamation of petitioner on the basis of the
official records and evidence adduced by the parties before the Board of Canvassers. Worse still, Comelec
annulled the proclamation of petitioner on the basis of new and additional evidence submitted by private
respondent which were not presented before the Board of Canvassers. (Book)
The importance of these official records and evidence cannot be overemphasized. The records contain the
contested election returns, the objections of the aggrieved party, the opposition of the prevailing party, the
evidence of the parties, and the rulings of the Board of Canvassers. R.A. No. 7166 explicitly provides that it
is only on the basis of these official records that the COMELEC can decide the pre-proclamation controversy in
a summary manner. Without the official records, the respondent COMELEC cannot validly decide a pre-
proclamation controversy. There is no showing that the official records of the Board of Canvassers were
forwarded to the respondent COMELEC and were used to cancel Velayos proclamation. (Additional!)
68. Loong vs Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner filed an action to declare the May 8, 1995 gubernatorial and vice gubernatorial elections in
Parang, Sulu. Petitioner avers that the election was covered with fraud that the results thereof does not reflect
the real choice of the masses. Respondent motu propio dismissed this action despite its own findings that
there were inconsistencies with the thumb marks of the registered voters’ database and the thumb marks
reflected in the CE form 1 and 2 during the conduct of elections but ordered
In the elections held in the Province of Sulu, petitioner Tupay T. Loong and private respondent Abdusakur Tan
ran for the position of Governor, while petitioner Kimar Tulawie and private respondent Munib Estino were
candidates for the position of Vice-Governor. After the canvass of the election returns of sixteen (16) of the
eighteen (18) municipalities of Sulu, respondent Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) recommended to the
COMELEC a recanvass of the election returns of Parang and Talipao. COMELEC, accordingly, relieved all the
regular members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) and ordered such recanvass by senior lawyers
from the COMELEC office in Manila. During the re-canvass, private respondents objected to the inclusion in the
canvass of the election returns of Parang. Respondent PBC, however, denied aforesaid objections of private
respondents, on the ground that only the certificate of canvass was forwarded to it and that private
respondents allegedly failed to object to the canvass of said certificate.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC can examine election returns beyond their face.
Held:
No.
Where the returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face, the Board of
Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them to verify allegations of irregularities in the casting or the
counting of votes. (Book)
Corollarily, technical examination of voting paraphernalia involving analysis and comparison of voters'
signatures and thumbprints thereon is prohibited in pre-proclamation cases which are mandated by law to be
expeditiously resolved without involving evidence aliunde and examination of voluminous documents which
take up much time and cause delay in defeat of the public policy underlying the summary nature of pre-
proclamation controversies. (Additional)
While, however, the COMELEC is restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of the election
returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election
irregularities, the COMELEC is duty bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other
analogous causes in actions for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections, as the
Omnibus Election Code denominates the same. Thus, the COMELEC, in the case of actions for annulment of
election results or declaration of failure of elections, may conduct technical examination of election documents
and compare and analyze voters' signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or not the
elections had indeed been free, honest and clean. Needless to say, a pre-proclamation controversy is not the
same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections. (Additional)
69. Mutuc vs Comelec (Opening Ballot Boxes)
Facts: The petitioners were the candidates of the Nacionalista Party, for the offices of mayor, vice mayor and
councilors in the municipality of Makati, Rizal in the general elections. The private respondents were the rival
candidates of the LP.
In counting the votes from the various precincts in Makati, the MBOC was confronted with an election
return which, while listing the names of the candidates, contained no entry at all of the votes cast for them.
This was the return from precinct 124. A recourse to the provincial treasurer's copy of the same return yielded
no result as it was likewise blank or incomplete. So was the Comelec's copy, except that this showed the total
 number (263, according to the parties) of the votes cast in the precinct. As a result, counting had to be
stopped.
The board of canvassers filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging that because of
discrepancies in the returns from certain precincts in Makati, among them precinct 124, the board could not
proclaim the winning candidates, and, for this reason, praying for the opening of the ballot boxes in the
precincts in question.
The board did not, however, press its petition. Instead, it asked the Comelec to be allowed to proceed
with the proclamation of the winning candidates, disregarding for this purpose the return from precinct 124,
on the claim that as the Comelec's copy of the return showed that there was a total of only 263 votes cast in
that precinct, the results of that election would not materially be changed by their inclusion.
Issue:
W/N the opening of ballot boxes be granted.
Ruling: YES
Where the copies of the election return contain no entries as to the number of votes received by each
candidates, the Comelec would be directed to order the board of inspectors of the precints in question, after
due notice to all the candidates, to open the ballot box corresponding to the said precints for the purpose of
retrieving therefrom the copy of the ER for use in the new canvass to be held by the municipal board of
canvassers, if said copy has been properly accomplished, or in the event that the said copy is blank or
incomplete, to count all the votes cast in the said precinct and then properly accomplish a return based on
such count.
70. TOMATIC ARATUC vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-49705-09 February 8, 1979
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari where Aratuc et al. sought the suspension of the canvass then being
undertaken by respondent Board in Cotabato city. A Supervening Panel headed by COMELEC
Hon. Venancio S. Duque had conducted the hearings of the complaints of the petitioners therein
of the alleged irregularities in the election records of the mentioned provinces. The Regional
Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, over the objection of the Konsensiya ng Bayan candidates,
declaring all the eight Kilusan ng BagongLipunan candidates elected. Appeal was taken by the KB
candidates to the Comelec. The Comelec issued its questioned resolution declaring seven
KBL candidates and one KB candidate as having obtained the first eight places, and ordering the
Regional Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed GADALEJ when it denied petitioners’ request for opening of ballot
boxes from voting centers whose records are not available for examination to determine whether or
not there had been voting in said voting centers?

HELD:
No. Taking cognizance of the unsettled peace and order in the localities in Mindanao involved in this
case, a situation subject to judicial notice, Comelec may not be faulted for not ordering the opening
of ballot boxes although under the circumstances that would have been the next best thing to do, in
view of the questionable returns, where the Comelec refusal was in obedience to guidelines
previously issued by the Court.
71. Bautista vs Castro
Both the petitioner Sergio Bautista and private respondent Roberto Miguel were candidates for Barangay
Captain of Barangay Teachers Village East, Quezon City. Bautista was proclaimed the winner. Miguel filed a
protest on the ground of fraud and illegal acts or practices allegedly committed by Bautista. Trial court
rendered a decision finding that both obtained same number of votes. Miguel filed an appeal to the Court of
First Instance which declared protestant Roberto Miguel the duly elected Barangay Captain. Petitioner Sergio
Bautista filed the instant petition for review by certiorari. He alleged that most of the ballots were written by a
single person. These ballots and the writings were the subject of QUESTIONED HANDWRITINGS
EXAMINATIONS of Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui, Examiner of Questioned Documents who was allowed by the lower
court to assist it in the appreciation of ballots.

Issue: W/N using handwriting experts is indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting

Ruling: No.

The ballots are the best evidence of the objections raised. Resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.
Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting,
this can be done by the COMELEC itself.
72. Bulaong vs. Comelec
Facts:
Private respondent Luis R. Villafuerte, a candidate for Provincial Governor of Camarines Sur filed an election
protest, alleging fraud and other irregularities in 594 precincts located in 10 municipalities and one city (Iriga
City) of Camarines Sur. He prayed that a revision of the ballots and other election documents and their
technical examination be ordered, that the results of the elections be annulled and that he be declared the
duly elected Governor of Camarines Sur which COMELEC granted.
Petitioner then filed a motion for the technical examination of the election documents alleging that there
had been tampering of the ballots between the time the ballot boxes were brought to Manila and the time
the revision began.
He asked, by a motion to allow his witnesses to examine and identify ballots and other election documents
before giving their affidavits. He alleged that these witnesses were public school teachers who composed
the Board of Elections Inspectors in the last election and that they would state in their affidavits that the
signatures on the reverse side of some ballots were not genuine. Comelec, however proceeded to identify
the genuineness of the returns even without petitioner’s witnesses.
Now, he claims that because of the Commission's orders in question, he was deprived of the right to prove his
allegations.
Issue: Whether or not the witnesses of the petitioner, which are handwriting experts are necessary to
resolve the issue of genuineness of ballots?
Ruling
No.
The ballots are the best evidence of the objection raised. Resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.
Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting.
This can be done by the Comelec itself.
73. Erni v Comelec 243 SCRA 706
FACTS:
Petitioner Benjamin R. Erni was proclaimed by the CBOC as the duly elected mayor of Tagaytay City
against his opponent Francis Tolentino. Respondent Tolentino filed an election protest, questioning 1,141
ballots out of 1,808 ballots-cast in favor of petitioner protestee in 14 out of 78 actual precincts in Tagaytay City.
Among other things he alleged that there was rampant substitution of votes and that ballots were in groups
written by one or a few persons. He prayed that a revision of the ballots be ordered and that he be declared
the duly elected mayor of Tagaytay City.
The Comelec later on set aside the proclamation of Erni and declared Tolentino as the lawful and duly
elected Mayor of Tagaytay City having garned a total of 4, 264 votes as against the 3,661 votes of the protestee
or a margin of 603 votes. The protestee was ordered to vacate the office of Mayor. Erni filed an MR before the
Comelec en banc. He claimed that contested ballots cast for him were substituted with fake ones.
Issue:
Whether or not resort to handwriting experts is mandatory to determine the authenticity of the votes
Ruling: NO
The ballots are the best evidence of the objections raised. Resort to handwriting experts is NOT
MANDATORY. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing
handwriting. This can be done by the COMELEC itself.

74. Sanchez vs. Comelec

Facts: Candidate Augusto Sanchez filed his petition praying that respondent Comelec
after due hearing, be directed to conduct a recount of the votes cast 3 months ago in a
Senatorial elections to determine the true number of votes to be credited to him and
prayed further for a restraining order directing the Comelec to withhold the proclamation
of the last 4 winning candidates on the ground that the votes intended for him were
declared as stray votes because of the sameness of his surname with that of disqualified
candidate Gil sanchez, whose name had not been crossed out from Comelec election
forms.
Issue: WON the Comelec may be compelled to withhold the proclamation of the winning
candidates.

Ruling: No. To allow the recount here, when now three months after the elections, is
unthinkable and certainly contrary to public policy and the mandate of the law that the
results of the election be canvassed and reported immediately on the basis of the
authentic returns which must be accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the
votes cast for and obtained by the candidates. The law and public policy mandate
that all pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the
Commission after due notice and hearings and just summarily decided. The
Comelec and the courts should guard "both against proclamation grabbing
through tampered returns" and "the equally pernicious effects of excessive
delay of proclamations" and "attempts to paralyze canvassing and
proclamation."
75. Lerias vs HRET 202 SCRA 808 (Summary Hearing and Disposition)

Facts: Petitioner Rosette Y. Lerias filed her certificate of candidacy as the official candidate of the UPP-KBL for
the position of Representative for the lone district of Southern Leyte. Respondent Roger G. Mercado was the
administration candidate for the same position. Provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Mercado, as the
winning candidate.

Lerias filed with the Comelec a petition for the annulment of the canvass and proclamation of Mercado. Lerias
filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, she filed an election protest with
respondent HRET. Dismissed.

Issue: How should pre-proclamation controversies be decided?

Held: Public interest demands that pre-proclamation contests should be terminated with dispatch so as not to
unduly deprive the people of representation, as in this case, in the halls of Congress. As the Court has stressed
in Enrile v. Comelec, and other cases, the policy of the election law is that pre-proclamation controversies
should be summarily decided, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass and proclamation should be
delayed as little as possible. The powers of the COMELEC are essentially executive and administrative in
nature and the question of fraud, terrorism and other irregularities in the conduct of the election should be
ventilated in a regular election protest and the Commission on Elections is not the proper forum for deciding
such matters; neither the Constitution nor statute has granted the COMELEC or the board of canvassers the
power, in the canvass of elections returns to look beyond the face thereof 'once satisfied of their authenticity'.
76 Aguam vs Comelec
Facts:Aguam and Balindong are some of the mayoralty candidates of Ganassi, Lanao del Sur. Aguam was
proclaimed winner. Balindong filed for the annulment of pet’s proclamation claiming that there were
tampering in the election returns., which the comelec took cognizance. Petitioner argues that respondent
Balindong filed his petition on January 6, 1968, after the proclamation of November 20, 1967. It is petitioner’s
trenchant claim that since the two-week period from proclamation, allowed for protests, had long elapsed,
Comelec is without power to entertain the same—it had no jurisdiction.

Issue: Won Comelec may take cognizance despite such delay

Held: Yes. The election law does not provide for a time limit within which a candidate may challenge the
validity of a proclamation before Comelec. We are unprepared to say that inaction for an unreasonable
period may not block him. Even then, considering the steps taken by respondent, first, in the Court of First
Instance, and second, in the Comelec, the time gap between the alleged illegal proclamation of November 20,
1967 and the petition before Comelec of January 6, 1968 does not authorize this Court to say that respondent
Alim Balindong is guilty of laches.
77. Abayon v COMELEC GR No. 181295
Facts: Abayon and respondent Raul Daza were candidates for the Office of Governor of the Province of
Nothern Samar during the 14 May 2007 elections. On 19 May 2007, Abayon filed five pre-proclamation
protests, three of which were either denied or dismissed, while the rest were either not proper for a pre-
proclamation controversy, or without merit at all. When Abayon filed an election protest, COMELEC held that it
was filed out of time. Under Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code, an election protest should be filed
within 10 days from the date of the proclamation of the results of the election. Since Daza was proclaimed on
20 May 2007, Abayon had only until 30 May 2007 to file his election protest. However, he filed it only on 29
June 2007. The COMELEC referred to the case of Villamor v. Comelec, when it declared that in order for a
petition for annulment of proclamation to suspend the period for filing of election protest, it should be based
on a valid pre-proclamation issue. In applying this ruling, it decreed that the pendency of Abayon’s petition for
annulment of Dazas proclamation, did not toll the running of the ten-day period for filing an election protest.
Issue: Whether or not the filing of a pre-proclamation case affects the election protest
Ruling: Yes. Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, allowing a pre-proclamation case to suspend the
period for filing the election protest, was clearly intended to afford the protestant the opportunity to avail
himself of a remedy to its fullest extent; in other words, to have his pre-proclamation case resolved, without
the pressure of having to abandon it in order to avail himself of other remedies. It protects the right of the
protestant to still file later on an election protest on grounds that he could not raise in, or only became
apparent after his filing of, a pre-proclamation case. Section 248 is not to be used as a justification for the
irresponsible filing of petitions, which on their face are contrary to the provisions of election laws and
regulations, and which only serve to delay the filing of proper remedies and clog the dockets of the
COMELEC and the courts.
Jurisprudence makes it clear that the mere filing of a petition denominated as a pre-proclamation case or one
seeking the annulment of a proclamation will not suspend the ten-day period for filing an election protest. It is
required that the issues raised in such a petition be restricted to those that may be properly included therein.
Hence, Abayon’s petition should be dismissed.
78. Rasul v Comelec 371 PHIL 760

Main point: with respect to the House of Representatives, it is the HRET that has the
sole and exclusive jurisdiction over contests relative to the election, returns and
qualifications of its members. The use of the word 'sole in section 17, Article 6 of the
Constitution and in Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code underscores the exclusivity
of the Electoral Tribunals’ jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.

Facts: Private respondent Teresa Aquino-Oreta was proclaimed as the 12th winning
candidate in the May 1998 senatorial elections. Petitioner Santanina Rasul questioned
the said proclamation. She argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction when, acting as a National
Board of Canvassers, it declared that the remaining uncanvassed certificates would no
longer affect the results and proceeded to proclaim the twelve (12) winning candidates.
She contends that if the number of registered voters who have yet to cast their votes
where special elections have been suspended is combined with the uncanvassed votes
from other areas of the country, there is a possibility that the 12th ranking senatorial
candidate, Teresa Aquino-Oreta could be dislodged by the l3th placer, Roberto
Pagdanganan. The petitioner submits that the inclusion of Aquino-Oreta among the
winning candidates was premature and based on incomplete canvass. Thus, she filed a
petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court is proper
remedy.

RULING: NO. Where a senatorial candidate has already been proclaimed winner, the
petitioner’s proper remedy is to file a regular election protest which under the
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code exclusively pertains to the Senate Electoral
Tribunal. The word “sole” in the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code underscores
the exclusivity of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to its
members.

79. GR. 181478 July 5, 2009

Eddie T. Panlilio v. COMELEC

FACTS: Panlilio and PR Pineda are gubernatorial candidates in the province of Pampanga. Panlilio
proclaimed. PR filed an election protest on the ground that votes cast for her were deliberately misread,
that ballots with blank spaces for governor were credited to Panlilio, and that the ballots were prepared
by persons other than the voters themselves. COMELEC 2 nd div. gave her election protest due course.
Panlilio filed MR, denied by the same division. COMELEC en banc denied his omnibus motion. COMELEC
en banc stated that the orders of the 2 nd div are interlocutory orders. Since the COMELEC’s Division issued
the interlocutory Order, the same COMELEC Division should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the
Order.

Panlilio argues that the COMELEC acted with GADALEJ in giving due course to the election protest,
notwithstanding that private respondent failed to raise her objections first before the Board of Election
Inspectors.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC acquired jurisdiction.

HELD: Yes. The filing of a protest before the Board of Election Inspectors is not a condition sine qua non
[necessary requirement] before the COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over an election protest. Jurisdiction
is conferred only by law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.

80. Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC

Facts:

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of Leyte First
District. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilio Montejo, also a candidate for the same position, filed a
petition for disqualification of the petitioner with COMELEC on the ground that petitioner did not meet the
constitutional requirement for residency. On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an amended certificate of
candidacy, changing the entry of seven months to “since childhood” in item no. 8 in said certificate. However,
the amended certificate was not received since it was already past deadline. She claimed that she always
maintained Tacloban City as her domicile and residence. The Second Division of the COMELEC with a vote of 2
to 1 came up with a resolution finding private respondent’s petition for disqualification meritorious. petitioner
contends that it is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC which has jurisdiction
over the election of members of the House of Representatives in accordance with Article VI Sec. 17 of the
Constitution.

Issue: W/N The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction?

Ruling: No.

B: The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
elections return and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a
member of the House of Representatives. Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it
is obvious that the H.R.E.T. at this point has no jurisdiction over the question.

81. Domino v Comelec

Facts:

On 25 March 1998, DOMINO filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the
Lone Legislative District of the Province of Sarangani. On 30 March 1998, private respondents Narciso Ra.
Grafilo, Jr., Eddy B. Java, et al, filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of
Candidacy, to the Second Division of the COMELEC. Private respondents alleged that DOMINO, contrary to his
declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, much less a registered voter, of the province of
Sarangani. On 11 May 1998, the day of the election, the COMELEC issued Supplemental Omnibus Resolution
No. 3046, ordering that the votes cast for DOMINO be counted but to suspend the proclamation if winning,
considering that the Resolution disqualifying him as candidate had not yet become final and executory.

Issue:

Whether or not the Comelec and not the electoral tribunal has jurisdiction over the issue of his
ineligibility as a candidate of Domino.

Ruling:

Yes. Electoral Tribunals sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contest relating to the election, returns and
qualification of members of Congress on Const art 6 section 17 begins only after a candidate was proclaimed
and must have taken his oath of office, before he can be considered a member of the House of
Representatives. The fact of obtaining the highest number of votes in an election does not automatically
vest the position in the winning candidate. In the instant case, DOMINO was not proclaimed as Congressman-
elect by reason of a Supplemental Omnibus Resolution issued by the COMELEC. This resolution was issued by
the COMELEC in view of the non-finality of its 6 May 1998 resolution disqualifying DOMINO as candidate for
the position.

82. Perez vs. COMELEC

317 SCRA 641

FACTS:

On March 26, 1998, private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy for
Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11, 1998 elections. Four days
later, on March 30, 1998, petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed in the COMELEC a
petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a candidate on the ground that
he had not been a resident of the district for at least one (1) year immediately before the
day of the elections as required by Art. VI, §6 of the Constitution. On May 10, 1998, the
First Division of the COM ELEC, in a unanimous resolution, dismissed the petition for
disqualification, finding private respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative
for the Third District of Cagayan.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition for certiorari and
eventually pass upon private respondent’s eligibility for the office of Representative of
the Third District of Cagayan

RULING: No. Where at the time of the filing of the petition for reconsideration of the
denial of the petition for disqualification, the person sought to be disqualified was
already a member of the HOR, the court has no jurisdiction. Pursuant to Consti., Art
VI 17, the HRET has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for the
declaration of private respondent’s ineligibility.

83. LAZATIN v. COMELEC

Facts:

Carmelo Lazatin filed the instant petition assailing the jurisdiction of the Comelec to annul his proclamation
after he had taken oath of office, assumed office, and discharge the duties of Congressman of the 1st district of
Pampanga. The petitioner claims that the HRET and not the Comelec is the sole judge of all election contests.

Lazatin’s opposition alleged that the instant petition has become moot and academic because the assailed
Comelec resolution had already been become final and executory when the SC issued a TRO. A separate
comment was filed by the Comelec, alleging that the proclamation of Lazatin was illegal and void because the
board simply corrected the returns contested by Lazatin without waiting for the final resolutions of the
petitions of candidates Timbol, Buan Jr. and Lazatin against certain election returns.

Issue:

WON the issue should be paced under the HRET’s jurisdiction.

Ruling:

YES.

Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of House of
Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and
qualifications ends, and the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) own jurisdiction begins.

84. Guerrero vs. COMELEC

Facts:
Ruiz sought to disqualify respondent Rodolfo C. Farias as a candidate for the elective office of
Congressman in the first district of Ilocos Norte for failure to file a Certificate of Candidacy during the
1998 elections. He contended that Farias could not validly substitute for Chevylle V. Farias, since the latter
was not the official candidate of the Lakas ng Makabayan Masang Pilipino (LAMMP), but was an
independent candidate. Another person cannot substitute for an independent candidate. COMELEC En
Banc dismissed Ruizs motion for reconsideration and Guerreros petition-in-intervention for lack of
jurisdiction.
Issue: WON the COMELEC committed GAD for refusing to rule on the validity or invalidity of the
candidacy or purported certificate of candidacy of Farias.
Ruling:
No. Whether respondent Farias validly substituted Chevylle V. Farias and whether respondent
became a legitimate candidate, in our view, must likewise be addressed to the sound judgment of
the Electoral Tribunal. Only thus can we demonstrate fealty to the Constitutional provision that the
Electoral Tribunal of each House of Congress shall be the "sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members".
85. Planas vs Comelec
GR No. 167594, March 10, 2006
FACTS:
Planas filed his COC for representative of the 3 rd Congressional District of Quezon City under Koalisyong ng
Nagkakaisang Pilipino. Cabochan also filed COC under Liberal Party but her COC dated Jan. 5, 2004 appears to
have been notarized on even date. However, the stamped entries showed that the commission of her lawyer
as Notary Public was until Dec. 31, 2003. Cortiguerra, a registered voter of Quezon City filed a petition to deny
due course and cancellation of COC of Cabochan alleging serious and material defect. Cabochan withdrew her
COC and Matias Defensor filed his substitution of Cabochan. Planas field a Petition for the Suspension of the
Canvassing of votes in favor of Defensor who appeared to be leading. Defensor was proclaimed winner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the proclamation is valid.
RULING:
Yes. The general rule is that the proclamation of a congressional candidate divests COMELEC of jurisdiction in
favor of the HRET. This rule, however, is not without xception. As held in Mutuc, et al v Comelec, it is true that
after proclamation the usual remedy of any aprty aggrieved in an election is to be found in an election protest.
But that is so only on the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Whereas in the case at bar the
proclamation itsef is illegal, the assumption of office cannot in any way affect the basic issue.
In the case at bar, at the time of the proclamation of Defensor who garnered the highest number of votes,
the Division Resolution invalidating his COC was not yet final, hence, he had at that point in time remained
qualified. Therefore, his proclamation was valid or legal. Following Mutuc then, as at the time of Defensor’s
proclamation the denial of his COC was not yet final, his proclamation was valid or legal and as he in fact
had taken his oath of office and assumed his duties as representative, the Comelec had been effectively
divested of jurisdiction over the case.
86. Aggabao vs Comelec G.R. 163756

Facts: Georgidi B. Aggabao and Anthony Miranda were rival congressional candidates for the 4th District
of Isabela during the May 10, 2004 elections. During the canvassing of the certificates of canvass of votes
(COCV) for the municipalities of Cordon and San Agustin, Miranda moved for the exclusion of the 1st copy
of the COCV on grounds that it was (1) tampered with (2) prepared under duress (3)differed from other
authentic copies and (4) contained manifest errors. Aggabao objected arguing that the grounds raised by
Miranda are proper only for a pre- proclamation controversy which is not allowed in elections for
Members of the House of Representatives. On appeal with the COMELEC, Aggabao asserted that the PBC
acted without jurisdiction when it heard Miranda’s Petition for Exclusion. Even assuming that the PBC
had jurisdiction over the petition, it still erred in excluding the contested COCVs as they appeared regular
and properly authenticated

Issue: WON Comelec has jurisdiction over Aggabao’s petition.

Ruling: No. The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction overall contests relative to the election,
returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning
candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of
Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns,
and qualifications ends, and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s own jurisdiction
begins. It is undisputed that Miranda has already been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed
office on June 14, 2004 As such, Aggabao’s recourse would have been to file an electoral protest
before the HRET. His remedy is not this petition for certiorari. The allegation that Miranda’s
proclamation is null and void ab initio does not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction. The reason for
this ruling is to avoid duplicity of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between the
constitutional bodies, with due regard to the people’s mandate.

87. LIMKAICHONG VS COMELEC

FACTS

Limkaichong filed with the COMELEC her for the position of Representative of the First
District of Negros Oriental.
Petitions for her disqualification were instituted before the COMELEC on the ground that
she lacked the citizenship requirement (not a natural-born Filipino).

After the casting, counting and canvassing of votes, petitioner won. Petitioner argued
that her proclamation by the PBOC divested the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over all
issues relating to her qualifications, and that jurisdiction now lies with the HRET since
she had assumed office and had started to perform her duties and functions as such.

ISSUE: Whether, upon Limkaichong's proclamation, the HRET, instead of the

COMELEC, should assume jurisdiction over the disqualification cases.

RULING: YES
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the jurisdiction of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal begins over election contests relating to his
election, returns, and qualifications, and mere allegation as to the invalidity of her
proclamation does not divest the Electoral Tribunal of its jurisdiction.

88. Guingona vs Comelec 219 SCRA 326

Facts: As a result of the national elections of 1992, the Senate was composed of 15 senators coming from LDP,
5 from NPC, 3 from LAKAS-NUCD and 1 from LP-PDP-LABAN. To suffice the 12 representatives of Senate in the
Commission on Appointments, they agreed to use the traditional formula, having LDP with 7.5 members, NPC
with 2.5 members, LAKAS-NUCD with 1.5 members and LP-PDP-LABAN with 0.5 member. Respondent-senator
Alberto Romulo then nominated for and in behalf of the LDP, eight senators. Such nomination was objected by
petitioner-senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr. To resolve the case, Senator Arturo Tolentino proposed a compromise
with elected members consisting of eight LDP, one LP-PDP-LABAN, two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD. Petitioner
Guingona, Jr. then filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the recognition of
Senators Romulo and Tañada as members of the CA as it is a violation of the rule of proportional
representation and that it is the right of the minority political parties in the Senate, consistent with the
Constitution, to combine their fractional representation in the Commission on Appointments to complete one
seat therein, and to decide who, among the senators in their ranks, shall be additionally nominated and
elected thereto.

Issue Whether or not the case can be reviewd by the Supreme Court without prior recourse to the House.

Ruling: No. Even assuming that the party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to
designate common nominees to the HRET and CA, their primary recourse clearly rests with the House of
Representatives and not with this Court. Under Sections 17 and 18 or Article VI of the Constitution, party-list
representatives must first show to the House that they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled
to seats in the HRET and the CA. Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on
proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can the party-list representatives see
recouse to the Supreme Court under its power of judicial review. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
prior recourse toe the House is necessary before petitioners may bring the instant case to the court.

The discretion of the House to choose its members to the HRET and the CA is not absplute, being subjecto to
the mandatory constitutional rule on proportional representation.

89. DAZA VS SINGSON

G.R. No. 86344 December 21 1989

FACTS:
The HoR proportionally apportioned its 12 seats in the CoA among several political parties
represented in that chamber in accordance with Art. VI Sec 18. The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
was reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the HoR. 24 members of the Liberal Party
joined the LDP, reducing their former party to only 17 members.
On the basis of this development, the House of Representatives revised its representation in the CoA
by withdrawing the seat occupied by Daza and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. On December
5th, the chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original members except the
petitioner and including therein Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the LDP.

Daza came to the Supreme Court to challenge his removal from the CoA and the assumption of his
seat by the Singson. Acting initially on his petition for prohibition and injunction with preliminary
injunction, SC issued a TRO that same day to prevent both Daza and Singson from serving in the
CoA.

Daza contented that he cannot be removed from the CoA because his election thereto is permanent.
He claimed that the reorganization of the House representation in the said body is not based on a
permanent political realignment because the LDP is not a duly registered political party and has not
yet attained political stability.

Whether or not the realignment will validly change the composition of the Commission on
Appointments

HELD:

At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section 18, of the Constitution providing as follows:

Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of

the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House
of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in
case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty
session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a
majority vote of all the Members.

The authority of the House of Representatives to change its representation in the Commission
on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political
alignments of its membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and do
not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political
loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to
another.

The Court holds that the respondent has been validly elected as a member of the Commission
on Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in that body pursuant to Article VI, Section
18, of the Constitution.

90. PIMENTEL VS HRET

Facts: On March 3, 1995, the Party-List System Act took effect. This sought to promote proportional representation in
the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system in pursuant of section2 of the
Republic Act 7941. On 11 May 1998, national elections were held, which included for the first time the election of party-
list group through popular vote. Fourteen representatives were elected coming from thirteen party-list groups namely
APEC, ABA, COOP-NATCO, AKBAYAN, and ABANSE.

Subsequently, the House constituted its House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Commission of Appointments
contingent by electing representatives to these bodies. It appears that no one from the party-list group was nominated.
On 18 January 2000, Senator Pimentel wrote two letters to Senate President Ople as Chairman of Commission of
Appointments and Justice Melo as chairman of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to reorganize both bodies
in order to include partylist representative in accordance to Sec. 17 and 18 Art. VI of the Constitution.

On 2 February 2000, Petitioners filed a petition in the Supreme Court assailing that party-list representatives should have
at least 1.2 seat in the HRET and 2.4 seats in CA. They assert that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in
refusing to act positively on Senator Pimentel’s letter. Hence, they invoked section 11 of Republic Act 7941. The Solicitor
General’s consolidated comment shows that the party-list group only constitutes 6.36% of the House.

Issue: Whether or not the SC can exercise judicial review of the composition of the electoral tribunal?

Ruling: Yes, Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and their internal rules, the HRET and the CA
are bereft of any power to reconstitute themselves. The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives
the prerogative, within constitutionally defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-list representatives
those who may occupy the seats allotted to the House in the HRET and the CA. However, even assuming that party-list
representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and the CA,
their primary recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives and not with the Supreme Court.

Under Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the Constitution, party-list representatives must first show to the House that they
possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET and the CA. Only if the House fails to comply
with the directive of the Constitution on proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can
the party-list representatives seek recourse to the Supreme Court under its power of judicial review. Under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before direct recourse to the Supreme Court.

91. Lerias vs HRET

Petitioner Rosette Y. Lerias filed her certificate of candidacy as the official candidate of the UPP-KBL for the
position of Representative for the lone district of Southern Leyte. Respondent Roger G. Mercado was the
administration candidate for the same position. Provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Mercado, as the
winning candidate.
Lerias filed with the Comelec a petition for the annulment of the canvass and proclamation of Mercado. Lerias
filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, she filed an election protest with
respondent HRET. Dismissed.

Issue: W/N the Court can interfere with the HRET's judgment or decision.
Ruling: No.

The power of the HRET, as the "sole judge" of all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications
of its members is beyond dispute. Exception: judicial review of decisions or final resolutions of the HRET is
possible only in the exercise of this Court's so-called "extra-ordinary jurisdiction" – upon a determination
that the tribunal's decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion or upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power
as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error,
manifestly constituting such a grave abuse of discretion that there has to be a remedy for such abuse. Then
only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown that the Court interferes with the HRET's judgment
or decision.
92. GARCIA vs HRET

FACTS: Petitioners, all duly registered voters in their district, filed a petition for quo warranto, before the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) against Congressman Harry Angping. Petitioner
questioned the eligibility of Congressman Angping to hold office in the House of Representatives, claiming
that the latter was not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a constitutional requirement.

Upon filing of the their petition, petitioners duly paid the required P5,000.00 filing fee.

However, the HRET issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for quo warranto for failure to pay the
P5,000.00 cash deposit required by its Rules. After receiving a copy of the aforesaid Resolution,
petitioners paid the P5,000.00 cash deposit on June 26, 1998 and attached the corresponding receipt to
the Motion for Reconsideration they filed with the HRET on the same day. Petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration was, however, denied, in view of Rule 32 of the 1998 HRET Rules which required a
P5,000.00 cash deposit in addition to filing fees for quo warranto cases.

ISSUE: May a petition for quo warranto before the HRET be summarily dismissed for failure to pay cash
deposit, notwithstanding that petitioner rectified payment thereof?

RULING: YES. Party litigants appearing before the HRET or, to be more precise, their lawyers, are duty
bound to know and are expected to properly comply with the procedural requirements laid down by the
Tribunal without being formally ordered to do so. They cannot righteously impute abuse of discretion to
the Tribunal if by reason of the non-observance of those requirements it decides to dismiss their petition.
Imperative justice requires the proper observance of technicalities precisely designed to ensure its
proper and swift dispensation.

Therefore, the court finds that the HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in applying its Rules
strictly and in dismissing the petition for quo warranto.
93. Loyola vs HRET

Facts:

Petitioner as candidate for representative of the 2nd District of Cavite during the 1992 elections filed an
electoral protest before (HRET) against proclaimed elected Congressman Renato Dragon, private respondent
herein. PR filed a motion praying that he be given an extension within which to file his answer. His motion was
denied by HRET. PR nonetheless filed his answer, which was not, however, admitted by HRET stating that
‘having been filed beyond the period to answer, let a general denial be deemed entered for the protestee’
Issue: W/N an entry of general denial in election cases is equivalent to an admission of all the allegations in the protest
Ruling:

No. The interpretation of the HRET Revised Rules where general denial is undoubtedly recognized and
allowed. As a rule, except where specific denials are required, a general denial is sufficient, and denies all the
material allegations of the pleading to which it is addressed. In other words, a general denial traverses all
material averments of the pleading. It gives to the defendant the same right to require the plaintiff to establish
by proof all the material facts necessary to his cause of action. It does not amount to an admission of the
material allegations in the protest. Consequently, trial must follow.
94. ARROYO v HRET
Private respondent filed an election protest before HRET after the Makati board of canvassers proclaimed
petitioner Joker Arroyo the duly elected congressman for the lone district of Makati.
Private respondent's evidence were mere photocopies and not certified or authenticated by comparison with
the original documents or identification by any witness.
HRET admitted and appreciated evidence of PR.
ISSUE: W/N the best evidence rule may be applied in this case.
RULING: YES. The Supreme Court explored the suppletory applicability of the rules of evidence to the HRET
rules to adjudge the correct number of votes for each of the two competing congressional candidates.
HRET undisputedly admitted and appreciated as evidence mere photocopies of election-related documents
when there is not even the slightest showing that the original or even certified true copies thereof cannot be
reasonably produced before the Tribunal. These photocopies violate the best evidence rule which is simply
meant that no evidence shall be received which is merely substitutionary in its nature so long as the original
evidence can be had. They should have been rejected altogether unworthy of any probative value at all, being
incompetent pieces of evidence.
95. Matinez III vs HRET
Facts:
Petitioner & private respondent are candidates for Legislative Representative in Cebu in the 2007 elections.
Petitioner filed petition to declare another candidate, Edilito Martinez, as nuisance candidate. The petition was
only resolved almost a month after the elections, with Edilito declared as nuisance candidate.
Salimbangon was declared the winner in the elections. Petitioner made a protest to the HRET,
contending that the votes “MARTINEZ” and “C. MARTINEZ” were not credited to him, and said votes could
have made him win the election. The HRET held that the votes were properly denied on the ground that there
was no way of determining the real intention of the voter, as Edilito was still a candidate during the election
day, and said votes could be for either of them.
Issue:
Whether or not the “MARTINEZ” or “C. MARTINEZ” votes are to be credited to petitioner.

Held:
Yes.
 Where the ballots indicating only the similar surname of two candidates for the same position may, in
appropriate cases, be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate and not considered stray, even if the other
candidate was declared a nuisance candidate by final judgement after the election.
96. Pangilinan vs Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner Pangilinan and Private respondent Belmonte were both candidates for congressman in the 4 th
legislative district of Quezon City. Subsequently registered voters of the fourth legislative district of Quezon
City, filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against the private respondent for violation of
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (B. P. Blg. 881), for allegedly (1) during a rally held
at Agno Street he gave one sack of rice, P5000, and medicines to the community and had made them avaialbe
to them services of a lawyer alleging inter alia that (2) giving tickets for two to Hongkong to the winner in a
pageant. Petitioner then filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend the Canvass and Proclamation of Belmonte but
COMELEC ignored the said motion.

During the Canvass, Kiko objected to over 120 election returns being canvassed, alleging that they were
tampered, altered or spurious.
The City Board of Canvassers overruled the objections of Kiko. The reason was that under Sec 15 of Ra 7166,
pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed in the election of Congressmen. Thus, the canvassing
continued.
Thus, Kiko assailed the constitutionality of RA 7166, disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in the election
of Congressmen.
Issue:
Whether or not the COMELEC have jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies for the election of
Congressmen
Held:
No.
Although the Comelec may not hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against member of the
House and the Senate, manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election returns may be corrected by
the canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of interested person, or by the Comelec upon
proper appeal from the ruling of the board of canvassers. (Book)
Sec 2 of Art IX-C vests in the Comelec exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of all elective REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL, AND CITY OFFICIALS. It has no
jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House. Under
Article VI, it is the HRET who is the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of
Members of the House. Thus, the phrase “pre-proc controversies” in Art IX-C, should be construed as referring
only to those falling within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of Comelec, that is, election pertaining to
regional, provincial and city officials. RA 7166 is still VALID. Since Sonny Belmonte has already been proclaimed
winner, and has taken oath and assumed office, the remedy of Kiko was to file an electoral protest with the
HRET.
 97. Lerias vs. HRET (Role of Comelec)
Facts: Rosette Y. Lerias filed her CoC as the official candidate of the UPP-KBL for the position of Representative
for the lone district of Southern Leyte. In her CoC she gave her full name as "Rosette Ynigues Lerias". Her
maiden name is Rosette Ynigues. Respondent Roger G. Mercado was the administration candidate for the
same position.
During the canvass of votes for the congressional candidates by the Provincial Board of Canvassers, it appeared
that, excluding the certificate of canvass from the Municipality of Libagon which had been questioned by
Mercado on the ground that allegedly it had been tampered with, the candidates who received the two (2)
highest number of votes were Roger G. Mercado with 34,442 votes and Rosette Y. Lerias with 34,128 votes,
respectively.
The HRET majority opinion rejected the election returns and sustained the certificate of canvass because (1)
the Comelec found that the Comelec copy of the certificate of canvass is "regular, genuine and authentic on its
face" and said finding of the Comelec had been sustained by the Supreme Court; (2) the protestant (meaning
Lerias) had agreed during the pre-proclamation proceedings to the use of the Comelec copy of the certificate
of canvass; and (3) the authenticity of the election returns from the four (4) disputed precincts had not been
established.
The reasons given by the majority for doubting the authenticity of the election returns are: (a) the non-
production of the election returns during the entire pre-proclamation proceedings definitely creates much
doubt as to their authenticity especially so when they surfaced only almost a year later after the ballots had
been stolen; (b) during that time, the election returns may have been tampered with and "doctored" to Lerias'
advantage; (c) no proof whatsoever was offered to show that the integrity of the ballot box in which they were
kept was not violated; and (d) the witnesses presented by Lerias had shown their partisanship in her favor by
executing affidavits to support her protest.
Issue: Who should take cognizance of the controversy? Comelec or HRET?
Ruling: HRET.
The question of fraud, terrorism, and other irregularities in the conduct of the election of a congressional
candidate should be brought before the electoral tribunal which is the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. The Comelec is
not the proper forum for deciding such matters in a pre-proclamation controversy.
98. EDILWASIF T. BADDIRI vs COMELEC G.R. No. 165677. June 8, 2005
FACTS:
Petitioner Baddiri was a candidate for Board Member, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, of Sulu. During the
proceedings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu, respondent Loong became aware of a
manifest error of 2,000 excess votes in favor of petitioner Baddiri. Loong filed a Petition for
Correction of Manifest Error with the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Sulu. Provincial Board of
Canvassers of Sulu granted the Petition for Correction of Manifest Error.

ISSUE: WON the provincial board of canvassers of sulu had jurisdiction over the petition for
correction?

HELD:
Yes. The pertinent rule on the matter is Section 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which
states correction can be made when shown before proclamation that manifest errors were
committed, there was a mistake in the adding or copying of the figures into the certificate of
canvass; thus, the board may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any candidate, make
necessary corrections. As regards petitioners allegation that the petition for correction is unverified,
it has long been enunciated that the COMELEC has discretion to liberally construe its Rules provided
under Section 3 and 4 of Rule 1 of the Comelec’s Rules of Procedure.
99. Suligin vs Comelec

Petitioner Margarito Suliguin was one of the candidates for the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna. In
the Statement of Votes covering Precincts 1A to 19A, Sumague appears to have received only 644 votes when,
in fact, he received 844 votes. The MBOC failed to notice the discrepancy and Petitioner was proclaimed.
Sumague requested for a recomputation of the votes. Upon review, the MBOC discovered that it had, indeed,
failed to credit respondent Sumague his 200 votes. MBOC filed before the Comelec a "Petition to Correct
Entries Made in the Statement of Votes" for Councilor. Comelec granted. Petitioner moved for the
reconsideration, arguing that pursuant to Sections 35, 36(c) and (f) of Comelec Resolution No. 6669 (General
Instructions for Municipal/City/Provincial and District Boards of Canvassers in Connection with the May 10,
2004 Elections), the MBOC should not have entertained the letter-request of respondent Sumague as it was
filed 4 days after the canvassing of votes was terminated and after he (petitioner) was proclaimed winner.

Issue: W/N Statutes on election contests should be strictly construed.

Ruling: No

Sections 312 and 413 of Rule 1 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure explicitly provide that such rules may be
"liberally construed" in the interest of justice.
Book:
What is involved in the present petition is the correction of a manifest error in reflecting the actual total
number of votes for a particular candidate. Section 32, subparagraph 5 of Comelec Resolution No. 6669
includes mistake in the addition of the votes of any candidate as a manifest error. As correctly cited by the
Comelec, a manifest clerical error is "one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding and is
apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which
may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have been committed."
100. Quintos vs. Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner, Ricardo V. Quintos received 56,043 votes and lost to private respondent Jose T. Villarosa by 1,093
votes. Petitioner filed with the COMELEC an election protest, docketed as Election Protest Case No. 2001-
34, against private respondent claiming that massive fraud and illegal electoral practices were committed in
the contested precincts in the election for Governor of Occidental Mindoro.
Private respondent from this filed a counter protest alleging fraud by petitioner concerning 14 ballot boxes
in certain precincts. Private respondent’s counsel moved that the Regional Trial Court of Mamburao be
allowed to take first custody of the Contested Ballot Boxes before their transmittal to the COMELEC.
Comelec denied private respondent’s motion because of COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 giving the COMELEC
preference in the custody of the Contested Ballot Boxes over the Regional Trial Court.
Private respondent averred that if COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 were strictly implemented, the resolution
of the election protests in the Municipality of Paluan would suffer undue delay as resolution of the election
protests in the Municipality of Paluan would have to wait for the COMELEC to complete its revision of the
ballots in the Contested Ballot Boxes. Private respondent argued that if the RTC be given custody over the
ballot boxes, the local election protests would be resolved expeditiously without causing any undue delay in
the resolution of petitioner’s election protest and private respondent’s counter-protest.
Comelec granted the custody of ballot boxes to RTC, thus leading petitioner to file an action for certiorari
alleging that Comelec has no jurisdiction in granting RTC the custody over the ballot boxes.
Issue: Whether not Comelec acted without jurisdiction over the election protest of petitioner when it
granted the petition of respondent for custody of ballot boxes?
Ruling:
Yes. The COMELEC has original jurisdiction over the election protest of petitioner who sought to be
proclaimed as the duly elected Governor of the Province of Occidental Mindoro. Under Article IX-C, Section
2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the COMELEC exercises "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections x x x of all elective, provincial, and city officials x x x." Since the COMELEC has
jurisdiction over petitioner’s election protest, it had the authority to issue the Assailed Orders.
101. Javier v Comelec (1986)
Facts:

The petitioner and the PR were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the 1984 elections.
On the eve of the elections, the bitter contest between the two came to a head when several followers of the
petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly by the latter’s men. 7 suspects, including respondent
Pacificador, are now facing trial for these murders.

The petitioner went to the COMELEC to question the canvass of the election returns. His complaints
were dismissed and the PR was proclaimed winner by the Second Division of the said body. The petitioner
thereupon came to this Court, arguing that the proclamation was void because made only by a division and
not by the Commission on Elections en banc as required by the Constitution. The Second Division promulgated
the decision now subject of this petition which inter alia proclaimed Arturo F. Pacificador the elected
assemblyman of the province of Antique. The petitioner then came to this Court, asking to annul the said
decision on the basis that it should have been decided by COMELEC en banc.
Issue: Whether or not the election contest is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections
insofar as they applied to the members of the defunct BATASANG PAMBANSA.
Ruling:Yes

The word "contests" should not be given a restrictive meaning; on the contrary, it should receive the
widest possible scope conformably to the rule that the words used in the Constitution should be interpreted
liberally. As employed in the 1973 Constitution, the term should be understood as referring to any matter
involving the title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or after proclamation of the winner,
whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute. Needless to stress, the term should be given a
consistent meaning and understood in the same sense under both Section 2(2) and Section 3 of Article XII-C of
the Constitution.

The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all
matters affecting the validity of the contestee's title. But if it is necessary to specify, we can say that "election"
referred to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and
the casting and counting of the votes; "returns" to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the
winners, including questions concerning the composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity of
the election returns and "qualifications" to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against
the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy.

All these came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections insofar as they applied to the
members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa and, under Article XII-C, Section 3, of the 1973 Constitution,
could be heard and decided by it only en banc.

102. Tagoranao vs. Comelec

Facts: Cota Cornell, Naga Tagoranao and Hadji Mangata Mangondato were three of the
four mayoralty candidates in the municipality of Marantao, Lanao del Sur. In an obvious
intention to block Mangondato's proclamation, Cornell for his part asked for the
suspension of the proceedings, claiming that he had filed with the Comelec a petition for
the annulment of the registry list of voters, and that the issue posed by his petition was a
prejudicial question. Comelec refused to order the rejection of the returns from precincts
1 and 13. Cornell charges the Comelec with neglect of duty in not ordering the rejection
of the returns. According to him the votes cast in those precincts were based on the
registry list whose nullification he had sought even before the election. While conceding
that the Comelec has no power to decide questions involving the right to vote, Cornell
nevertheless argues that without valid registration the votes cast are "void ab initio" so
that "in legal contemplation, there are no votes cast, hence, the COMELEC will not be
annulling a vote for none has been cast."
Issue: WON Comelec has the power to determine the validity or nullity of votes.

Ruling: Yes. In deciding election contest, the Comelec has the power to
determine the validity or nullity of votes. The Court said
in Nacionalista Party v. Commissionon Elections: "The power to decide election
contests which is vested exclusively in the courts and in the electoral tribunals of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives" necessarily includes the power to
determine the validity or nullity of the votes questioned by either of the contestants." If
that power is vested in the courts and in the electoral tribunals alone, as in fact it is, then
the incidental power to determine the validity or nullity of the votes must perforce be
deemed impliedly withheld from any other body or tribunal such as the Comelec.
103. Samad vs Comelec 224 SCRA 631 (Election protest and quo warranto distinguished)

Facts: Samad and Abdula were mayoralty candidates of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Two canvassing boards
were created during the election and each of the boards proclaimed Samad and Abdula as winners. Samad
filed with the Comelec First Division a petition to nullify Abdulla’s proclamation, and for special election. A few
days after, Samad also filed for a quo warranto case against Abdulla.

Issue: Was quo warranto the proper remedy?

Held: No. An election protest is a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the ground of
frauds or irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the returns. It raises
the question of who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the
office. A quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not necessarily to
install the petitioner in his place. Quo warranto was not the proper remedy because both the petitioner and
the private respondent claimed to have assumed the office of the mayor of Kabuntalan. In a quo warranto
proceeding, the petitioner is not occupying the position in dispute. Moreover, under the Omnibus Election
Code, quo warranto is proper only for the purpose of questioning the election of a candidate on the ground
of disloyalty or ineligibility.

104 Guerrero vs Comelec

Facts: Guillermo Ruiz sought to disqualify respondent Farinas as a candidate for the position of Congressman in
the First District of Ilocos Norte. Ruiz alleged that Farinas had been campaigning as a candidate for
Congressman in the May 11, 1998 polls, despite his failure to file a certificate of candidacy for said office. On
May 8, 1998, Farinas filed his certificate of candidacy substituting candidate Chevylle Farinas who withdrew on
April 3, 1998. On May 10, 1998, the COMELEC dismissed the petition of Ruiz for lack of merit.
After the election, Farinas was duly proclaimed winner. Thereafter, Ruiz filed a motion for reconsideration,
contending that Farinas could not validly substitute for Chevylle Farinas, since the latter was not the official
candidate of LAMMP, but was an independent candidate. Another person cannot substitute for an
independent candidate. Ruiz claimed that Farinas’ certificate of candidacy was fatally defective. On June 3,
1988, Farinas took his oath of office as a member of the House of Representatives. The COMELEC dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the
determination of the validity of thecertificate of candidacy of respondent Farinas is already within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
Held: No. There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it held that its jurisdiction
over the case had ceased with the assumption of office of respondent Farinas as Representative for the
first district of Ilocos Norte. While COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a certificate of
candidacy, its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and assumption of the position by
Farinas is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Under Art. VI,
Sec. 17 of the Constitution, the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over allcontests relative to the
election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning
candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of the House of
Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over electioncontests relating to his election, returns and
qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELEC’s decision
todiscontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in deference to the HRET’s own jurisdiction and
functions.
105. Macasundig v Macalangan 13 SCRA 577

Facts: The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Poonabayabao, Lanao del Sur, proclaimed Dirugungun Macalangan as
Municipal Mayor on November 12, 1963. On November 29, 1963, Sheik Bolug G. B. Nuska, one of the defeated
candidates, having obtained the fifth place, filed a motion of protest. Hadji Lomontod Macasundig, also filed a motion of
protest. Macalangan filed a motion to dismiss the motion of protest alleging: (1) that the protest states no cause of
action; (2) that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case; and (3) that the provisions of the Revised Election Code had
not been followed or complied with and such non-compliance amounts to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the parties
and subject-matter of the action. The motion to dismiss was at first denied by the lower court but upon motion for
reconsideration

Issue: Whether or not a motion of protest against a protestee which contains all the jurisdictional facts and statements
of a cause of action to warrant the hearing of the case on its merits should be dismissed simply because another motion
of protest against the same protestee had previously been filed in the same court.

Ruling: No. This Court has held that an election protest involves public interest, and technicalities should not be
sanctioned when it will be an obstacle in the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of its public
officials. It is a recognized principle that laws governing election protests must be liberally interpreted to the end that
the popular will expressed in the election of public officers will not, by reason of purely, technical objections, be
defeated. This is more so in the present case if We consider the fact that the appellant here obtained the second place
among the candidates that were voted for Municipal Mayor, the appellant being behind by only 23 votes from the
appellee; in contrast to the case of the protestant in the other election protest (Case No. 1300) who obtained the fifth
place and was 105 votes behind the protestee. There is merit in the contention of the appellant that the lower court
could have the two election cases heard together and decide the two cases in one decision. We believe that the rights of
the protestant in both cases can very well be determined by court in a joint hearing of the two cases, and one decision
can be rendered for the two cases. This is really what the lower court should have done. Case is remanded to lower
court.
106. Quintos v COMELEC GR No. 149800 November 21 2002

TOPIC: CUSTODY OF BALLOT BOXES

Facts: Quintos and Villarosa were candidates for Governor of Occidental Mindoro in the
May 14, 2001 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Villarosa the
winner (who was ahead of Quintos by only 1,093 votes). Quintos filed with the COMELEC
an election protest against Villarosa on the ground of massive fraud and illegal electoral
practices during the registration, voting, and counting of votes. Quintos likewise averred
that because of such fraud, he was deprived of certain votes cast in his favor.

Villarosa filed his counter-protest against the thirteen ballot boxes from the 13 contested
precincts from the municipality of Paluan. He also moved that the RTC of Mamburao be
allowed to take custody of the contested ballot boxes before their transmittal to the
COMELEC.

The COMELEC denied Villarosa’s motion because of COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 which
gave the COMELEC the preference in the custody of the contested ballot boxes over the
RTC. Villarosa later filed a motion for reconsideration while averring that if COMELEC
Resolution No. 2812 were strictly implemented, the resolution of the election protests in
the municipality of Paluan would suffer undue delay. The COMELEC later granted
Villarosa’s motion.

Issue: Whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion by giving the RTC of Mamburao priority in the custody and revision of
the ballots.

Ruling: No. Admittedly, the COMELEC enjoys preference over the Regional Trial
Court of Mamburao in the custody and revision of the ballots in the Contested
Ballot Boxes. However, the COMELEC may for good reason waive this
preference and allow the Regional Trial Court first access to the Contested
Ballot Boxes. The COMELEC allowed the Regional Trial Court to have first access to the
Contested Ballot Boxes to give the parties therein immediate relief rather than have
them unreasonably wait until the instant protest case (Election Protest Case No. 2001-
34) involving the whole Province of Occidental Mindoro be resolved to their detriment.
Another reason was to avoid the protested ballots being transported back and forth from
Paluan to Comelec, Manila then back again to Paluan or Mamburao.

The COMELEC insured that this arrangement did not prejudice petitioners right to a
speedy resolution of his election protest. The COMELEC limited the privilege given to the
Regional Trial Court only to the period when the COMELEC was still revising other
protested ballot boxes. The COMELEC requested the Regional Trial Court to expedite its
revision of the ballots and to deliver the Contested Ballot Boxes to the COMELEC one
week prior to the COMELECs termination of the revision of other protested ballot boxes
107. 184 SCRA 484 Apr. 20, 1990

Roque Flores v. COMELEC

FACTS: Flores was proclaimed as kagawad by the BOC in Barangay Poblacion, Tayum, Abra. In accordance
with Sec. 5 of RA 6679, he became punong barangay. [among 7 kagawads, one with highest votes becomes
punong barangay]PR Rapisora contested this. MCTC sustained Rapisora and proclaimed him as punong
barangay. Flores appealed with RTC, which affirmed MCTC’s decision. Flores went to COMELEC, but it
dismissed his appeal on the ground that it had no power to review the decision of the RTC. Flores filed
petition for certiorari, faulting COMELEC for not taking cognizance of his petition. COMELEC was of the
opinion that it could not entertain the petitioner's appeal because of the provision in Rep. Act No. 6679
that the decision of the regional trial court in a protest appealed to it from the municipal trial court in
barangay elections "on questions of fact shall be final and non-appealable.

Flores submits that since the MTC/MCTC are courts of limited jurisdiction, their decisions in barangay
elections are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC. Hence, the decision of MCTC
should have been appealed with the COMELEC.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC has the power to review the decision of the RTC.

HELD: Yes. In accordance with Art. 9-C, Sec. 2(2), Sec. 9 of Rep. Act No. 6679, insofar as it provides that
the decision of the municipal or metropolitan court in a barangay election case should be appealed to the
regional trial court, must be declared unconstitutional. Counsel who wishes to appeal from an adverse
decision in an election contest for a barangay office should consider filing the appeal with the COMELEC,
rather than with the RTC, in light of the declaration of unconstitutionality of Sec. 9 of RA no. 6679.

108. Taule vs Santos

Facts: On June 18, 1989, the Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes,
composed of eleven (11) members convened in Virac, Catanduanes with six members, including Taule, in
attendance for the purpose of holding the election of its officers. The group decided to hold the election
despite the absence of five (5) of its members. The Governor of Catanduanes sent a letter to respondent the
Secretary of Local Government, protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its nullification
due to flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted. The Secretary nullifed the election of the officers
of the FABC and ordered a new one to be conducted to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the
Department of Local Government. Taule, contested the decision contending that neither the constitution nor
the law grants jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary over election contests involving the election of
officers of the FABC and that the Constitution provides that it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective barangay officials.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of
the officers of the Federation of Association of Barangay Councils;

Ruling: No.

B: The Comelec does not have jurisdiction over protests involving the organizational set-up of the katipunan
ng mga barangay composed of popularly elected punong barangay as prescribed by law whose offices are
voted upon by their respective members. Its authority over the katipunan ng mga barangay is limited by law to
supervision of the election of the representative of the katipunan concerned to the sanggunian in a particular
level conducted by their own respective organizations. Taule Santos, 200 SCRA 512 (1991).

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay officials is limited to appellate
jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts. Under the law, the sworn petition contesting the election of a
barangay officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court by any candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office within 10 days after the
proclamation of the results.

109. Frivaldo v Comelec

Facts:

Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22,
1988, and assumed office in due time. On October 27, 1988, the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter
(hereafter, League), represented by its President, Salvador Estuye, filed with the Commission on Elections a
petition for the annulment of Frivaldo; election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino
citizen, having been naturalized in the United States on January 20, 1983. In his answer dated May 22, 1988,
Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded the special and
affirmative defenses that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos.
His naturalization, he said, was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting
persecution by the Martial Law Dictator's agents abroad." He added that he had returned to the Philippines
after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. He also argued that the challenge to his title
should be dismissed, being in reality a quo warranto petition that should have been filed within ten days from
his proclamation, in accordance with Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the quo warranto petition against Frivaldo should have been filed within 10 days from
proclamation

Ruling:
 Yes. As a rule the quo warranto petition seeking to annul the petitioner’s election and proclamation
should have been filed within ten days after the proclamation of election results. The 10-day period for
filling such against a public officer must be strictly applied. The purpose of the law in not allowing the filing of
protests beyond the period fixed by law is to have a certain and definite time within which petitions against the
results of an election should be filed and to provide summary proceedings for the settlement of such disputes.
However, in the case at bar it was only in September 1988 that they received proof of his naturalization which
was eight months after his proclamation and his title was challenged shortly thereafter, and this is a clear case
of an alien holding an elective public office and perhaps in a clear case of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines hence Frivaldo was disqualified.

110. Samad vs. COMELEC

224 SCRA 631(Include ruling on filing)

FACTS:Petitioner Sukarno S. Samad and private respondent Bai Unggie Abdula were
candidates for mayor of kabuntalan Maguindanao in the synchronized elections of May
11, 1992. Samad sought the nullification of the proclamation made in favor of Abdula
and the calling of a special election in three precincts. he petitioner filed in the Regional
Trial Court of Cotabato City an action against the private respondent for quo
warranto and prohibition with preliminary injunction.

ISSUE: whether jurisdiction over the present controversy remained with the COMELEC
or was vested in the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City upon the filing of the petition
for quo warranto

RULING:Yes, COMELEC retained . An election protest is a contest between the defeated

and winning candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and
counting of the ballots or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the question of who
actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the
office. A quo warranto proceeding is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office
but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. The petitioner is not occupying
the position in dispute. A petition for quo warranto raises in issue the disloyalty or
ineligibility of the winning candidate.

(Rule on Filing)The subsequent filing of a petition for quo warranto in the RTC is not
tantamount to abandonment of the petition for nullification of the proclamation and the
calling of special elections previously filed with COMELEC. Although the general rule is
that the institution of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the
subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy, the exceptions are: (1) the BOC was
improperly constituted; (2) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (3) what was filed
was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a
proclamation; (4) the filing of a quo warrranto petition or an election protest was
expressly made ad cautelam; and (5) the proclamation was null and void.

111. NACIONALISTA PARTY v. BAUTISTA

On November 9, 1949, while respondent still holds the office of Solicitor General of the Philippines, President
Quirino designated him as acting member of the COMELEC. That same date, he took the oath of office and
proceeded to assume and perform the duties of the office. It was averred that he had not resigned from the
OSG while performing the acts as acting member of the COMELEC.

Petitioner filed a writ of prohibition issue commanding the respondent Solicitor General to desist forever from
acting as acting member of the Commission on Elections contending that the designation was invalid, illegal,
and unconstitutional since there was no vacancy in the COMELEC at the time the designation was made.
Petitioner contended that there was a grave abuse of discretion and was done in bad faith by the President
therefore the same was null and void.

Issue:

WON prohibition is the proper remedy.

Ruling:

YES.

Counsel seeking to disqualify an office holder should consider filing a petition for prohibition, rather than quo
warranto.

In the case at bar, however, as we have found that the respondent's designation to act temporarily as member
of the Commission on Elections is unlawful because it offends against the provisions of the Constitution
creating the Commission on Elections, the dismissal of the petition would deny and deprive the parties that are
affected by such designation of a remedy and relief, because no one is entitled now to the office and a party
who is not entitled to the office may not institute quo warranto proceedings, and the respondent as Solicitor
General, the only other party who may institute the proceedings, would not proceed against himself. In these
circumstances, it is incumbent upon and the duty of this Court to grant a remedy. There are cases involving a
situation similar to the one under consideration wherein it was ruled that the remedy of prohibition may lie.

113. Maquinay vs Bleza

100 SCRA 702 (1980)

FACTS:
Petitioner was a candidate for mayor in Municipality of Carmona, Cavite. He had filed his candidacy and was
opposed by respondent Nilo de Guzman. Petitioner was proclaimed winner. Respondent filed an election
protest that canvassing and proclamation be declared null and void. Petitioner insists that the allegations in the
election protest filed by respondent are not sufficient compliance with the requirements of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the protest has substantially complied with the requisite of jurisdiction, specifically the
allegations.
RULING:
Yes. From the allegations that during the local elections, protestant was the official NP candidate and that he
received the total number of 1,729 votes as canvassed by the MBC, it could be inferred that he had duly fled
his COC, otherwise the BOC would not have credited in his favor the 1,729 votes. To insist that he should have
expressly alleged in his protest that he has duly filed his COC would be making a fetish of the technicality. A
single fact may be alleged in different ways with the same effect. Precision in the use of terms in an election
protest is not indispensable. Substantial compliance is sufficient. Statutes providing for election contest are to
be liberally construed as they are intended to promote, not defeat, justice. Technicalities are not favored. This
should be more so upon consideration that in an election protest, public interests enter and that there is a
need of ascertaining the free and true will of the voters.
114. Mutilan vs Comelec G.R. 171248, April 2, 2007

Facts: Dr. Mahid M. Mutilan (petitioner) and Zaldy Uy Ampatuan (private respondent) were candidates for
Governor during the election of regional officials held on 8 August 2005 in the ARMM. Private respondent
Ampatuan was proclaimed as the duly elected Governor of the ARMM. Petitioner filed an Electoral Protest
and/or Petition to Annul the Elections, on the ground that no actual election was conducted in the
precincts in Maguindanao, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, and Sulu. Petitioner alleged that the voters did not actually
vote and that the ballots were filled up by non-registered voters in the four provinces. Petitioner also
contested the results in the municipalities of Butig, Sultan Gumander, Calanogas, Tagoloan, Kapai, Masiu,
and Maguing in Lanao del Sur where alleged massive substitute voting allegedly took place. COMELEC
Second Division: Dismissed the petition.

Issue: WON there are valid grounds to annul the elections.

Ruling: No. Where petitioner alleged that “[i]n some instances, the ballots were forcibly grabbed by
armed persons and the same were filled-up even before election day” without however citing the
particulars of his allegations; Where petitioner further alleges that “Election returns were already
filled up even before the counting started;” that “votes credited to candidates even exceeded the
number of registered voters of the precincts;” and that “in one of the counting areas, the tally
boards were filled up in the presence of some Comelec officials even before the ballots were
counted” but without stating the particulars of these incidents except that “[s]ome of these
anomalies were committed in the municipalities of Butig, Sultan Gumander, etc.” it was held that
the allegations were insufficient. None of the three instances for failure of elections is present in this
case. In this case, the elections took place. In fact, Ampatuan was proclaimed the winner.
Likewise, where petitioner alleged that the transfer of venue of the canvass was made without
previous notice to the candidates, where the proclamation of private respondent was made
without canvassing the results of the “farcical election” in Tawi-Tawi, where there were erasures in
the COC, the lack of initials by the Provincial BOC, the use of different inks and handwritings, and
where the PBOC simply noted his objections to the canvass of returns, it was held that these are
not grounds that would warrant the annulment of the elections..

115. CABRERA VS COMELEC

FACTS

Dissatisfied with the results of the mayoralty race in Taal, Batangas, petitioner (the 2 nd placer), filed an election
protest against private respondent Michael D. Montenegro. He filed his preliminary conference brief (PCB).

First Division of the Commission granted Montenegros petition to dismiss Petitioner’s petition. It ruled that
Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests, providing for the dismissal of the protest in case of
failure to state in the PCB brief its required contents, was mandatory. Given that Cabrera admitted his failure to
include the following:(1) a manifestation of his having availed, or his intention to avail, of discovery procedures
or referral to commissioners; (2) a manifestation of withdrawal of certain protested or counter-protested
precincts, if such is the case; and (3) in case the election protest or counter-protest seeks the examination,
verification or re-tabulation of election returns, the procedure to be followed the trial court gravely abused its
discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. Mere substantial compliance would not suffice to cure the obvious
omissions because the rules demand strict compliance.

ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper to dismiss the election protest filed

RULING: YES

The Rules command, in no uncertain terms, the filing of the preliminary conference brief and compliance with
the required contents of the said brief. By the Rules express language, the failure to comply therewith shall
have the same effect as failure to appear at the preliminary conference which, in turn, shall be a sufficient
cause for the dismissal of the protest.

The Rules should not be taken lightly. The Court has painstakingly crafted A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC precisely to curb
the pernicious practice of prolonging election protests, a sizable number of which, in the past, were finally
resolved only when the term of office was about to expire, or worse, had already expired. These Rules were
purposely adopted to provide an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for the just determination of election
cases before the courts. Thus, we emphasize that the preliminary conference and its governing rules are not
mere technicalities which the parties may blithely ignore or trifle with. They are tools meant to expedite the
disposition of election cases and must, perforce, be obeyed.

IN THE BOOK BUT NOT IN THE FULL TEXT: Counsel, instead of tracking the language of statutes and rules,
should allege ultimate facts showing that the requirements of the statutes and rules exist.
116. Loyola vs CA 245 SCRA 477

Facts: In the barangay election of May 1994, petitioner was proclaimed by the Barangay Board of Canvassers as
the duly elected Punong Barangay of Poblacion, Tangalan, Aklan on May 10, 1994. Private respondent
Fernandez filed an election protest against the petitioner on May 18, 1994. However, the petition was not
accompanied by a certification of non- forum shopping required under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of the
Supreme Court. The following day, May 1994, the private respondent submitted to the MCTC his certification
of non-forum shopping. On May 25, 1994, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the protest due to private
respondent’s failure to strictly comply with the Circular. The MCTC issued an order denying the motion to
dismiss. The RTC of Aklan denied the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner for lack of merit

Issue: Whether Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is mandatory and jurisdictional, and whether it is applicable
in election cases.

Held: The filing of the certification was within the period for filing an election protest. When petitioner was
proclaimed as the Punong Barangay on May 10, 1994, respondent has ten days from such proclamation within
which to file the election protest. In this case, when respondent filed his certificate of non-forum shopping on
My 19, 1994, it was within the reglementary period provided for in the Omnibus Election Code, thus, he still
has until May 20, 1994 to complete the requirements of his petition.

Also, the fact that the Circular requires that it should be strictly complied with merely under serves its
mandatory nature in that it cannot dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not
thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances. There is nothing in
the Circular that indicates that it does not apply to election cases. On the contrary, it expressly provides that
the requirements therein “shall be strictly complied with in the filing of complaints, petitions, applications or
other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies other than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.

117. WACNANG VS COMELEC

FACTS: The petitioner was the official candidate of the LAKAS-CMD-LP-KAMPI-NPC Team Unity
(LAKAS-CMD) for the position of Governor of Kalinga Province in the May 14, 2007 elections. He was
initially opposed by Rommel W. Diasen the private respondents husband. Rommel originally filed his
COC for the House of Representatives to represent the lone district of Kalinga Province at the last
day for filing COCs. Before midnight of the same day, Rommel, through his son Rommel, Jr.,
withdrew his candidacy for the House of Representatives and at the same time filed a new COC for
the position of Governor.

On April 7, 2007 or nine (9) days after filing his COC, Rommel was shot dead during one of his
campaign sorties. On April 18, 2007, the private respondent filed her COC for Governor as substitute
candidate for her deceased husband. The COMELEC of Kalinga Province did not act on the private
respondents COC. Instead, Provincial Election Supervisor (PES) Thomas L. Uyam, in a
Memorandum dated April 23, 2007, referred the determination of whether to give due course to the
private respondents COC to the COMELEC En Banc.

The petitioner discloses in his petition that he earlier filed a petition for disqualification and that it was
still pending with the COMELEC at the time of the filing of the present petition. Additionally, he alleges
that he later learned of the quo warranto case which, as far as he knows, is still pending. In his
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping attached to the present petition, he claimed that
while the petition may be premised upon a similar set of facts, the case ( referring to the
disqualification case) does not involve the same issues, and the filing of this Petition does not amount
to forum shopping.

Issue: Whether or not the petition shall be dismissed.

Ruling: The petition shall be dismissed because of forum shopping. We resolve to dismiss the
petition for violation of the rules on forum shopping. Forum shopping is the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously
or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.
This Court has duly recognized as early as 1989 that forum shopping has very harmful and
deleterious effects on the orderly administration of justice. The practice trifles with the courts and their
processes, degrades the administration of justice, and results in the congestion of court dockets; it
opens our system to the possibility of manipulation, to uncertainties as conflict of rulings ensues, and
at least to vexation for complications other than conflict of rulings. Thus, in 1991, we issued Circular
No. 28-91 on forum shopping for application to cases filed in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court, followed by Administrative Circular No. 04-94 in 1994 to include cases filed in all courts and
agencies other than the Supreme Court. Finally, we incorporated the rule on forum shopping as Rule
7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, today, we have a well-entrenched rule as
guide and mandate and we have no choice but to decisively act; we have to slay the dragon of forum
shopping on sight as we see it rear its ugly head. Wacnang vs. Commission on Elections, 569 SCRA
799, G.R. No. 178024 October 17, 2008

118. ROLETO A. PAHILAN, petitioner,

vs.
RUDY A. TABALBA, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and HONORABLE JUDGE SINFOROSO V.
TABAMO, JR., BRANCH 28, MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, respondents.

Pimentel, Apostol, Layosa & Sibayan Law Office for petitioner.

Marciano Ll. Aparte, Jr. for Rudy A. Tabalba.

Ponente: REGALADO

FACTS:

Petitioner Pahilan and private respondent Tabalba were candidates for Mayor during the local
elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Tabalba as the duly elected
Mayor. Petitioner filed an election protest which he sent by registered mail, addressed to the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court , attaching thereto P200.00 in cash as payment for docket fees. In a
letter dated May 28, 1992, the OIC-Clerk of Court informed Pahilan that the correct fees that where
supposed to be paid amounted to P620.00, and that, accordingly, the petition would not be entered in
the court docket and summons would not be issued pending payment of the balance of P420.00. On
June 16, 1992, petitioner paid the required balance in the total amount P470.00 after learning.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the notice of appeal can be validly substituted by an appeal brief.

HELD:

YES. Order of the Commission on Elections and the Order of the RTC in Election Case No. 3(92) are
hereby reversed and set aside.

RATIO:

The rules which apply to ordinary civil actions may not necessarily serve the purpose of election
cases, especially if we consider the fact that election laws are to be accorded utmost liberality in their
interpretation and application, bearing in mind always that the will of the people must be upheld.
Ordinary civil actions would generally involve private interests while all elections cases are, at all
times, invested with public interest which cannot be defeated by mere procedural or technical
infirmities.

[I]n the present case, the docket fee was paid (P200.00) except that the amount given was not
correct. Considering the fact that there was an honest effort on the part of herein petitioner to pay the
full amount of docket fees, we are not inclined to insist on a stringent application of the rules.

118. Zamoras vs Comelec

Zamoras and private respondent Bartolome Bastasa ("Bastasa") were candidates for punong barangay of
Barangay Galas, Dipolog City. Bastasa won. Zamoras filed an election protest claiming that fraud and serious
irregularities marred the elections in nine precincts, Zamoras prayed for revision or recount of the ballots in
these nine precincts. Dismissed. Zamoras filed a notice of appeal. COMELEC’s Judicial Records Division directed
Zamora to remit P2,600 representing the deficiency in the payment of the required filing fees within three days
from receipt of the notice. Zamoras allegedly received the notice on 28 January 2003 and remitted the
deficiency by postal money order on the same day. Comelec dismissed Zamoras’ appeal for failure to perfect
his appeal within the 5-day reglementary period

Issue: W/N COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing
Zamoras’ appeal.
Ruling: No.
Zamoras cannot invoke the argument that courts must liberally construe technical rules of procedure to
promote the ends of justice. The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and a litigant may exercise such
right to appeal only in the manner prescribed by law. The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a
mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed
from would become final and executory as if there was no appeal filed at all.
119. CONUI-OMEGA vs SAMSON

FACTS: Mrs. Asuncion Conui-Omega filed a motion of protest with the court a quo contesting the election
of Dr. Cesar Samson, which was amended on June 16, 1960. Summon was served on June 20, 1960 stating
therein that protestee may file his answer within the period of 15 days. On June 28, 1960, the protestee,
instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the protest was not filed within
the 2-week period provided by law. On July 15, 1960, protestant filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss which was denied on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of 5 days from service of
summons. Protestee's motion for reconsideration having been denied, he brought the case by certiorari to
the Supreme Court which, motu proprio, dismissed it for lack of merit. Whereupon, on August 2, 1960,
protestee filed his answer to the motion of protest.

ISSUE: W/N protestee shall be deemed to have entered a general denial for failure to file his answer
within the period of 5 days

RULING: YES. The record shows that appellant was served with summons on June 20, 1960, but instead
of filing an answer he filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 1960, or 8 days from the service of summons.
The law provides that the protestee shall answer the protest within 5 days after service of summons, or in
case there is no summons, from the date of his appearance, and in all cases before the commencement of
the hearing.

Appellant argues that he was given 15 days within which to file his answer to the protest, but this is
merely due to a mistake committed by the clerk of court when he served upon protestee the ordinary
form of summons used in civil cases, which error cannot prevail over a specific provision of the law. The
provision to the effect that an answer must be filed "in all cases before the commencement of the hearing
of the protest" only means that no answer can be filed when the hearing of the protest has started. It does
not mean that, if there is summons, the answer can be filed even beyond the period of five days.

120. Aruelo v. CA

Facts:

Aruelo claims that in election contests, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives the respondent therein
only five days from receipt of summons within which to file his answer to the petition (Part VI, Rule 35, Sec. 7)
and that this five-day period had lapsed when Gatchalian filed his answer. According to him, the filing of
motions to dismiss and motions for bill of particulars is prohibited by Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure; hence, the filing of said pleadings did not suspend the running of the five-day
period, or give Gatchalian a new five-day period to file his answer.
Issue: W/N the trial court committed GADALEJ when it allowed respondent to file his pleading beyond the five-
day period prescribed in Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure

Ruling:

No. Petitioner filed the election protest with the Regional Trial Court, whose proceedings are
governed by the Revised Rules of Court.

Section 1, Rule 13, Part III of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not applicable to proceedings before
the regular courts. As expressly mandated by Section 2, Rule 1, Part I of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the
filing of motions to dismiss and bill of particulars, shall apply only to proceedings brought before the COMELEC.
Section 2, Rule 1, Part I provides:

Sec. 2. Applicability — These rules, except Part VI, shall apply to all actions and proceedings brought before the
Commission. Part VI shall apply to election contests and quo warranto cases cognizable by courts of general or
limited jurisdiction.

It must be noted that nowhere in Part VI of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is it provided that
motions to dismiss and bill of particulars are not allowed in election protests or quo warranto cases pending
before the regular courts.

Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain
pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure
in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court (Constitution, Art VIII, Sec. 5 [5]).

121. Melendres v COMELEC

FACTS: Melendres (who lost the Brgy. Chairman position to Concepcion) filed an election protest at the MTC,
Pasig contesting results of the elections. After preliminary hearing, it was found that no filing of docket fee was
paid by Melendres (which was required in Sec.6, Rule 37 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure) so Concepcion
moved to dismiss the case on grounds of failure to comply with it.
Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss and said that the case should be continued on the ground that the
filing of docket fee is merely an admin. procedural matter and not jurisdictional.
COMELEC ruled that the Trial Court should cease and desist from further acting on the Election case.
ISSUE: W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its ruling.
RULING: NO. Petitioner cannot seek refuge behind his argument that the motion to dismiss filed by private
respondent is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 1, Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure because that
provision refers to proceedings filed before the Comelec. The applicable provisions on the matter are found
in Part IV of the Rules of Procedure.

122. Jardiel vs Comelec

Facts:
In the local elections of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, held on January 30, 1980, petitioner Cesar Jardiel, a Kilusang
Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidate for Mayor seeking re-election, prevailed over private respondent Benjamin
Aves, a Nacionalista Party (NP) candidate, and was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on the
same date.
The day after the elections, or on January 31, 1980, the COMELEC received a telegraphic report from its Special
Action Team, and a letter-request from private respondent recommending the suspension of the canvass for
Mayor and Vice Mayor and the annulment of those already completed. The letter alleged that armed goons
supporting the petitioner disrupted the counting of votes and caused the transfer of the ballot boxes and the
canvassing of votes to the Municipal Hall where accredited NP watchers were denied access, and that ballots
were tampered with and blank unused ballots were filled up in favor of KBL candidates.
After hearing the position of the adverse parties, the COMELEC declared the elections or the results thereof,
annulled for they do not reflect the true or popular will of the electorate while the petition to dismiss by
petitione for insufficiency of evidence to support allegations of massive terrorism and rampant irregularities is
still pending. Hence this petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC’s resolution on merits without first receiving petitioner’s evidence
constitutes a denial of due process.
Held:
No.
With substantial evidence from both parties on hand, upon which a decision on its merits could be
reached without sacrificing the fundamental precept of due process, both in its substantial and its procedural
aspects, this Body elected to dispose of this case on the merits, rather than go to the circuitous process of
resolving independently the letter-motion to dismiss of the Respondent. The motion to dismiss was, therefore,
included in the disposition of the entire case, as it was mandated by the circumstances. Resort to this
procedural short-cut was compelled by the circumstance that being a pre-proclamation case, it had to be
threshed out summarily, keeping in mind the length of time that had lapsed after the date of the 1980 local
elections.
The COMELEC had weighed the conflicting pleadings, certifications and affidavits before it and
concluded that the case was ripe for resolution on the merits. It found that "a painstaking examination —
demanded by the gravity of the issues raised — of the records in this case resulted in the inescapable finding
that serious and widespread election venalities did occur in the hapless community of Penaranda.
Counsel should consider the consequences of filing a motion to dismiss an election protest, as there are
cases holding that it is tantamount to a demurrer to the evidence adduced by the protestant, and is deemed
an implied waiver of the protestee’s right to present his evidence, regardless of the court’s ruling thereon.
(Book)
123. Moraleja vs Relova
Facts:
An electoral protest filed by Cesar Mendoza, a candidate for councilor of the Municipality of Batangas,
Batangas, in the elections held on November 14, 1967, against Gregorio Moraleja, the candidate for the same
position who was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers as winner over the former by a plurality of
27 votes declaring respondent Mendoza as the duly elected eighth councilor of said municipality with a
plurality of one (1) vote over petitioner Moraleja. One of the grounds alleged in the petition filed with this
Court is that: (1) the trial court erred in not dismissing the protest notwithstanding that respondent Mendoza,
after the election and during the pendency of the electoral contest, had accepted the position of Technical
Assistant to the Vice-Governor of Batangas Province and was already discharging the functions of said position,
thereby either disqualifying himself or abandoning said protest.
Issue:
Whether or not the acceptance by respondent Mendoza of an appointment to the position of Technical
Assistant to the Vice-Governor of Batangas Province constitutes either a disqualification from the office in
dispute or an abandonment of his protest against the election of petitioner.
Held:
No.
Where the court has acquired jurisdiction over an election contest, the public interest involved
demands that the true winner be known without regard to the wishes or acts of the parties, hence there can
be no default. (Book)
As to the contention that by accepting such appointment as Technical Assistant, Protestant has
abandoned his protest, all that need be said is that once the court has acquired jurisdiction over an election
contest, the public interest involved demands that the true winner be known without regard to the wishes
or acts of the parties, so much so that there can be no default, compromise nor stipulation of facts in this
kind of cases. In the same manner that the acceptance by the protestee of an appointment to another
position is not a ground for dismissal of the protest like the resignation of the protestee from the contested
office (Angeles v. Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 595), simply because it is of public interest that the real winner be
known, neither can the acceptance of a more or less temporary employment, such as that of a technical
assistant of the Vice-Governor, which is a primarily confidential position, be considered as inconsistent with
protestant's determination to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real
choice of the electorate. In such instances, the plight of protestant may be viewed in the same light as that of
an employee who has been illegally dismissed and who, to find means to support himself and family while he
prosecutes his case for reinstatement, accepts a temporary employment elsewhere. Such employee is not
deemed to have abandoned the position he seeks to recover. (Tan v. Gimenez, et al., G.R. No. L-12525,
February 19, 1960, 107 Phil. 17; Potot v. Bagano, G-R. No. L-2456, January 25, 1949, 82 Phil. 679.) Of course,
the case of a protestant who accepts a permanent appointment to a regular office could be different, but We
are not ruling on it here.

124. De Mesa vs Mencias (Effect of Death of Party)

Facts:
Opponents for Mayoralty of Muntinlupa, Rizal in the 1963 elections were Francisco De Mesa and Maximino
Argana. The electorate’s choice, as tallied by the local board of Canvassers was de Mesa. Elected vice mayor
was Loresca. Meanwhile, Argana protested the election of De Mesa. On March 18, 1964, however, an
 assassin’s bullet felled De Mesa, and, forthwith Loresca was, by operation of law, duly installed as his successor.
In the election case, the protestant Argana moved for the constitution of committees on revision of ballots.
Issue: W/N the death of the protestee De Mesa abate the proceedings in the election protest.
Ruling: NO
The death of the protestee De Mesa did not abate the proceedings in the election protest filed against him, it
may be stated as a rule that an election contest survives and must be prosecuted to final judgement despite
the death of the protestee.
The determination of what candidate has been in fact elected is a matter clothed with public interest.
Therefore, public interest demands that an election contest which is duly commenced, be not abated by the
death of the contestant.

125. SANTIAGO A. SILVERIO vs PEDRO CASTRO G.R. No. L-23827 February 28, 1967
FACTS:
Castro was declared Mayor in Davao. Silverio protested the same. A counter protest was filed by
Castro. But, before a hearing could be conducted, Castro died. Vice-mayor, Clamor succeeded to the
Office of the Mayor. Thereafter, at the hearing on protest, Silverio won. Clamor appealed before the
SC.

ISSUE: WON Clamor can appeal on behalf of Castro?

HELD:
Yes. Where the protestee who had been proclaimed as mayor died during the pendency of the
protest and the vice mayor succeeded to the office of the mayor and the trial court found that the
protestant was the winner in the election for mayor, the vice mayor may appeal from the judgment
of the trial court.
126. Lomagduang vs Javier

Municipal Board of Canvassers of Culasi, Antique, certified that Paterno Javier had received the plurality of the
votes cast for Municipal Mayor according to the election returns, and thereby proclaimed him Mayor. Felix
Lomugdang, having obtained the second place, protested against the election of Paterno Javier. Lomugdang
impugned the result of the election in Precinct No. 4, alleging as grounds the commission of errors or
irregularities by the Board of Election Inspectors; erroneous appreciation of ballots, and improper adjudication
of votes. Shortly thereafter, protestant died. The court later declared the protestant, Felix Lomugdang, the duly
elected Municipal Mayor, with a plurality of 7 votes. Protestee appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that
the trial court erred in not dismissing the protest upon the death of the protestant before the hearing of the
protest.
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in not dismissing the protest upon the death of the protestant before the
hearing of the protest.
Ruling: No.

The determination of what candidate has been in fact elected is a matter clothed with public interest.
Therefore, public interest demands that an election contest, duly commenced, be not abated by the death of
the contestant.
127. Abeja vs. Tanada
Facts:
Petitioner Evelyn Abeja and private respondent Rosauro Radovan (deceased) were contenders for the office of
municipal mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, in the May 11, 1992, national elections.
Soon after the proclamation of private respondent, petitioner filed an election contest, docketed as Election
Case No. 92-1, entitled "Evelyn Abeja vs. Rosauro Radovan" with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City. The
protest covered twenty-two (22) precincts.
Private respondents on the other hand initiated a counter protest praying for the revision of 36 counter-
protested precincts if it is shown after completion of the revision of the 22 protested precincts that petitioner
leads by a margin of at least one (1) vote.
On June 13, 1993, private respondent Rosauro Radovan died. He was substituted by Vice-Mayor Conrado de
Rama and, surprisingly, by his surviving spouse, Ediltrudes Radovan.
Issue: Whether or not a widow may validly substitute his husband in a counter protest upon his death
Ruling:
No. The substitution of the deceased Rosauro Radovan's widow, Ediltrudes Radovan, on the ground that
private respondent had a counter-claim for damages. "Public office is personal to the incumbent and is not a
property which passes to his heirs" (Santos vs. Secretary of Labor, 22 SCRA 848 [1968]; De la Victoria vs.
Comelec, 199 SCRA 561 [1991]). The heirs may no longer prosecute the deceased protestee's counter-claim
for damages against the protestant for that was extinguished when death terminated his right to occupy the
contested office (Dela Victoria, supra).
128. Lanot substituted by Raymond v Comelec
Facts:
Henry P. Lanot, Vener Obispo, Roberto Peralta, Reynaldo dela Paz, Edilberto Yamat and Ram Alan Cruz
collectively filed a petition for disqualification under Sections 68 and 80 of the Omnibus Election Code against
Eusebio before the COMELEC. Lanot, Obispo, and Eusebio were candidates for Pasig City Mayor, while Peralta,
dela Paz, Yamat, and Cruz were candidates for Pasig City Councilor in the 2004 elections.
Eusebio denied petitioners’ allegations and branded the petition as a harassment case. Eusebio further
stated that petitioners’ evidence are merely fabricated.
 During the pendency of this case, an unidentified person shot and killed Lanot in Pasig City. It seemed
that, like endangered specie, the disqualification case would be extinguished by Lanots death. However, Lanots
counsel manifested, over Eusebios objections, that Mario S. Raymundo (Raymundo), a registered voter and
former Mayor of Pasig City, is Lanots substitute in this case.
Issue:
Whether or not disqualification case would be extinguished by Lanot’s death.
Ruling: No
The case for disqualification exists, and survives, the election and proclamation of the winning
candidate because an outright dismissal will unduly reward the challenged candidate and may even encourage
him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the disqualification case until after he has been
proclaimed. THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AFTER PROCLAMATION applies
when the challenged candidate becomes a member of the HOR or the Senate, where the appropriate electoral
tribunal would have jurisdiction. There is no law or jurisprudence which says that intervention or substitution
may only be done prior to the proclamation of the winning candidate. A substitution is not barred by
prescription because the action was filed on time by the person who died and who is being substituted to a
petition-in-intervention.
Note: The rules of court prescribe the procedure in substituting the proper party.
129. Lomugdang vs. Javier

Facts: the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Culasi, Antique, certified that Paterno Javier
had received the plurality of the votes cast for Municipal Mayor according to the election
returns, and thereby proclaimed him Mayor. Felix Lomugdang, having obtained the
second place protested against the election of Paterno Javier alleging as grounds the
commission of errors or irregularities by the Board of Election Inspectors; erroneous
appreciation of ballots, and improper adjudication of votes. Shortly before the case was
first set for hearing, and before any evidence could be adduced in the hearing of the
protest, the protestant Lomugdang met an untimely death. The protestee, through
counsel, moved to dismiss the protest. The court did not dismissed the protest.

Issue: WON the trial court erred in not dismissing the protest upon the death of the
protestant.
Ruling: No. The determination of what candidate has been in fact elected is a
matter clothed with public interest. The ineligibility of the protestant is not a
defense and is not a ground for the dismissal of the contest, neither does it
detract from the Court’s jurisdiction to decide the case.

130. Malaluan vs Comelec (Effect of expiration of term of protestee)

Facts: Petitioner Luis Malaluan and private respondent Joseph Evangelista were both mayoralty candidates in
the Municipality of Kidapawan. Evangelista was proclaimed. Petitioner filed an election protest with the RTC
contesting 64 precincts of the said municipality. The trial court declared petitioner as the duly elected
municipal mayor. The court found private respondent liable not only for Malaluan's protest expenses but also
for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Issue: What is the effect of the protestee’s expiration of the term?

Held: It is significant to note that the term of office of the local officials elected in the May, 1992 elections
expired on June 30, 1995. This petition, thus, has become moot and academic insofar as it concerns
petitioner’s right to the mayoralty seat in his municipality because expiration of the term of office contested
in the election protest has the effect of rendering the same moot and academic. When the appeal from a
decision in an election case has already become moot, the case being an election protest involving the office of
mayor the term of which had expired, the appeal is dismissible on that ground, unless the rendering of a
decision on the merits would be of practical value.

131 Santiago vs Ramos

Facts:The protestant, Miriam Defensor-Santiago ran for presidency and lost in the May 1992 election. In her
Motion on the 16th day of August in the year 1995, reiterated in her comment of the 29th of August of the
same year, protestant Defensor-Santiago prayed that the revision in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be
dispensed with and the revision process in the pilot areas be deemed computed.The Court deferred action on
the motion and required, instead, the protestant and protestee to submit their respective memoranda. Hence,
this petition.

Issue:Whether or not the election protest filed by Defensor-Santiago is moot and academic by her election as a
Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption of office as such on the 30th of June in the year 1995.

Held:YES. The Court held that the election protest filed by Santiago has been abandoned or considered
withdrawn as a consequence of her election and assumption of office as Senator and her discharge of the
duties and functions thereof.The protestant abandoned her “determination to protest and pursue the public
interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate.Moreover, the dismissal of this
protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992
presidential elections, thereby enhancing the all too crucial political stability of the nation during this period of
national recovery.Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform the PET within 10 days if
after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she still wishes to present evidence.
Since DS has not informed the Tribunal of any such intention, such is a manifest indication that she no longer
intends to do so.

132. Miguel v COMELEC GR No. 13696 (2000)

Facts: James Miguel and Eladio Lapuz were candidates who ran for the mayoralty post in the Municipality of
Rizal, Nueva Ecija on 11 May 1998. Three days thereafter, petitioner who garnered a total of 9,951 votes was
proclaimed Mayor-elect, over private respondent who obtained 8,911 votes. On May 25, 1998, private
respondent (Lapuz) filed a verified Petition of Protest against herein petitioner before the RTC of Cabanatuan
impugning the results of the elections for the mayoralty position in all 105 precincts of the Municipality of
Rizal, Nueva Ecija on grounds of election fraud, anomalies and irregularities. The court scheduled a conference
for the purpose of discussing and resolving matters relating to the "constitution of Board of Revisors, deposit
of the requisite sum for revision of ballots and the commencement of presentation and reception of
evidence." Miguel moved to reconsider and prayed that in the absence of preliminary hearing, the opening of
the ballot boxes and recounting of ballots should not be undertaken. This was granted, and a hearing was
ordered. Lapuz questioned the orders with the COMELEC, which set aside the same.
Issue: WON the preliminary hearing should be conducted first before the ballot boxes may be opened
Ruling: No. The rule in this jurisdiction is clear and jurisprudence is even clearer. The serious allegations
embodied in the election protest mandates and necessitates the opening of the subject ballot boxes to the
end of resolving the issue of fraud and irregularities in the election. Precisely, the purpose of ordering the
opening of the ballot boxes is to ascertain, with the least amount of protracted delay, the veracity of the
allegations of fraud and anomalies in the conduct of the electoral exercise. Thus, a preliminary hearing set
for the same purpose is a mere superfluity that negates the essence of affording premium to the prompt
resolution of election cases and incidents relating thereto. The lower court clearly committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering the conduct of a preliminary hearing to achieve the abovementioned purpose; the court
a quo acted outside its province and overshot the limits of its jurisdiction. The law does not require prima facie
showing other than the allegations in the protest of fraud or irregularities in order to authorize the opening of
the ballot boxes. Applying this principle, the stand taken by the lower court was extremely technical and highly
impractical, apart from tending to defeat one of the major objectives of the law. Courts and tribunals should
then endeavor to adopt only such means consistent with this general objective and be constantly reminded to
refrain from such a needless exercise "which has spawned the protracted delay that the law and the principle
underlying it precisely intend to forestall. Accordingly, the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
issuing its resolution setting aside the trial court’s order.

133. Conui Omega v Samson

Main point: When the motion of protest contains sufficient allegations that frauds,
errors and irregularities in the count were committed, and as long as they refer to the
ballots involved in the contested precincts, the trial court is justified in requiring the
production of said ballots even if the parties did not deem it necessary to present them
as evidence.

Facts: Conui-Omega and Samson were both candidate for the position for councilor in
the City of Ormoc in the general elections held on November 10, 1959. After the canvass
of the votes the result showed that Samson had garnered enough votes to be proclaimed
as the last of the eight councilors composing the city council with a plurality of three
votes over his nearest opponent, Conui-Omega. Conui-Omega filed with the Court of
First Instance of Leyte a petition for recounting in Precincts Nos. 17 and 28 of said city,
which was later amended to include the votes cast in Precinct No. 8.

The court a quo rendered decision declaring protestant the duly elected eighth councilor
of Ormoc City with a plurality of 42 votes over the protestee, with costs against the
latter. Protestee took steps to appeal from the decision, but because he failed to exert a
bona fide effort to correct his original property bond which he reduced without previous
authority of the court, the presiding judge dismissed his appeal and declared the
decision final and executory.

Issue: WON the court a quo erred in appreciating the legality or illegality of the ballots
cast in his favor in the precincts in question and in permitting appellee to present in
evidence the ballots cast in favor of appellant?

HELD: Here, motion of protest contains sufficient allegations to the effect that
frauds, errors and irregularities in the count canvass of the votes in the
precincts in question had committed, and as long as they refer to the ballots
involved in the contested precincts, as is the case here, the court is justified in
requiring the production of said lots even if the parties did not deem it
necessary to present them in evidence. The only limitation is when the ballots
are not involved in the protest. The court a quo nothing contrary to the
limitation of the law on the matter.

134. 202 SCRA 808 Oct. 15, 1991

Rosette Yniguez Lerias v. HRET

FACTS: Lerias filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of Southern Leyte.
Mercado was the administration candidate for the position. During canvassing, Mercado questioned the
certificate of canvass of the Mun. of Libagon on the ground that it allegedly had been tampered with.
Excluding Libagon, Mercado had most votes. The PBC’s copy of the certificate canvass of Libagon, Lerias
would have won with a winning margin of 146 votes. But PBC ruled that since their copy of the certificate
had erasures, it cannot be the basis of the canvass. PBC rejected MBC’s claim that the erasures were made
to correct honest clerical mistakes and that such erasures were made in the presence of all watchers of
the 9 candidates. Lerias filed for the annulment of Mercado’s proclamation. She claimed that for the
certificates in Libagon, she received 1411 only when it was supposed to be 1811. She presented the
original copies of the certificates of the MBC, while Mercado only presented xerox copy of the certificate
of canvass of the COMELEC. HRET majority opinion sustained the COMELEC copy of the COCs. The
reasons given by the majority for doubting the authenticity of the election returns are the non-production
of the election returns during the entire pre-proclamation proceedings definitely creates much doubt as
to their authenticity especially so when they surfaced only almost a year later after the ballots had been
stolen. [And that it could have been tampered in her favor.]

ISSUE: WON the original copies presented by Lerias must be given credence.

HELD: Yes. In an election contest where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each
candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves. But where the ballots
cannot be produced or are not available, the election returns would be the best evidence. Where it has
been duly determined that actual voting and election by the registered voter had taken place in the
questioned precincts or voting centers, the election returns cannot be disregarded and excluded with the
resulting disenfranchisement of the voters but must be accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of
the results of the voting. Canvassing boards, the COMELEC and the HRET must exercise extreme caution
in rejecting returns and may do so only upon the most convincing proof that the returns are obviously
manufactured or fake. And, conformably to established rules, it is the party alleging that the election
returns had been tampered with, who should submit proof of this allegation. Lerias is the duly elected
representative of Southern Leyte.

135. Lerias v HRET

Facts: Petitioner Rosette Y. Lerias filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative for the
lone district of Southern Leyte in the May 11, 1987 elections. In her certificate of candidacy she gave her full
name as "Rosette Ynigues Lerias". Her maiden name is Rosette Ynigues. Respondent Roger G. Mercado was the
administration candidate for the same position.

During the canvass of votes for the congressional candidates by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Southern
Leyte, it appeared that, excluding the certificate of canvass from the Municipality of Libagon which had been
questioned by Mercado on the ground that allegedly it had been tampered with, the candidates who received
the two (2) highest number of votes were Roger G. Mercado with 34,442 votes and Rosette Y. Lerias with
34,128 votes, respectively.

Lerias contended that in the four (4) protested precincts of Libagon where her votes were determined to be
1,411 only, the same were allegedly reduced by 100 votes in each precinct, thus totalling 400
To prove her contention, Lerias submitted original copies of the certificate of canvass of the municipal board of
canvassers and the provincial board of canvassers. She also invoked the original copy of the election returns for
the municipal board of canvassers of Libagon.

Issue: W/N Lerias was able to present proof of her allegation that the election returns ha e been tampered.

Ruling: Yes.

B: It is the party alleging that the election returns had been tampered with, who should submit proof of this
allegation. Lerias was able to present such proof.

Considering the indubitable evidence on record the 400 votes fraudulently taken away from Lerias should be
returned to her. So that in the entire municipality of Libagon, she received 1,811 votes. From the original
35,539 votes, Lerias should be credited with 35,939 votes as against the 35,793 votes of Mercado giving her a
margin of 146 votes. Whatever the results of the review of the ballots in the counter-protested precincts
would be, wherein Mercado won by 67 votes according to the majority, or as found by the dissenting
members, Lerias won by 12 votes

136. Bulaong v Comelec

Facts:
Private respondent Luis R. Villafuerte, a candidate for Provincial Governor of Camarines Sur filed an election
protest, alleging fraud and other irregularities in 594 precincts located in 10 municipalities and one city (Iriga
City) of Camarines Sur. He prayed that a revision of the ballots and other election documents and their
technical examination be ordered, that the results of the elections be annulled and that he be declared the
duly elected Governor of Camarines Sur which COMELEC granted.
Petitioner contends that there are "huge, abnormal and unexplained discrepancies" between the election
results reflected in the tally sheets and election returns, on the one hand, and the result of the revision of the
ballots, on the other hand between the time the ballot boxes were brought to Manila and the time the
revision began
He asked, by a motion to allow his witnesses to examine and identify ballots and other election documents
before giving their affidavits. He alleged that these witnesses were public school teachers who composed
the Board of Elections Inspectors in the last election and that they would state in their affidavits that the
signatures on the reverse side of some ballots were not genuine. Comelec, however proceeded to identify
the genuineness of the returns even without petitioner’s witnesses. Now, he claims that because of the
Commission's orders in question, he was deprived of the right to prove his allegations.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his right to prove his allegations when his witnesses were
not present at the time Comelec identified the genuineness of the returns

Ruling:
 No. Whether the ballots in this case were indeed tampered with, is a question which the petitioner has
to prove. That there is a "huge discrepancy" between the result of the canvass and that of the revision is no
proof that the Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying his request for additional time to
conduct a technical examination of election documents and to have his witnesses examine the ballots before
requiring them to make their affidavits. For as already stated, he was given sufficient time to present proof of
tampering or substitution of ballots but he failed to do so. Petitioner thus begs the question when he claims
that because the ballots have been tampered with, the election returns constitute the best evidence of the
result of the election.
137. Rosal vs. COMELEC
FACTS: Petitioner Noel E. Rosal and private respondent Michael Victor C. Imperial were
candidates for mayor of Legaspi City in the May 10, 2004 elections. After the counting and
canvassing of votes, petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor of Legaspi City. On
May 24, 2004, private respondent instituted a petition to annul the proclamation, [1] assailing
the canvass of election returns in the 520 precincts that had functioned during the election. On
July 6, 2004, the case was superseded by an election protest filed by private respondent with the
Commission on Elections (Comelec) contesting the results of the election in all 520 precincts on
the grounds of miscounting, misreading and misappreciation of votes, substitute voting,
disenfranchisement of voters, substitution and padding of votes, and other alleged irregularities.
On January 30, 2006, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Second Divisions
resolution. The motion was denied by the Comelec en banc in a resolution dated May 29, 2006.
[10] In due time, petitioner came to this Court with a petition for certiorari and prohibition
assailing the Comelec en banc resolution. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 172741 and
consolidated with G.R. No. 168253.
ISSUE: Whether or not the procedure to address post election fraud was properly observed.
RULING:No. The procedure adopted by the Second Division was a complete inverse of the one
outlined above and was contrary to reason. There was complete arbitrariness on its part. The
following principles must be complied with. (1) the ballots cannot be used to overturn the official
count as reflected in the election returns unless it is first shown affirmatively that the ballots
have been preserved with a care which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all suspicion
of change, abstraction or substitution; (2) the burden of proving that the integrity of the ballots
has been preserved in such a manner is on the protestant; (3) where a mode of preserving the
ballots is enjoined by law, proof must be made of such substantial compliance with the
requirements of that mode as would provide assurance that the ballots have been kept inviolate
notwithstanding slight deviations from the precise mode of achieving that end; (4) it is only when
the protestant has shown substantial compliance with the provisions of law on the preservation
of ballots that the burden of proving actual tampering or the likelihood thereof shifts to the
protestee and (5) only if it appears to the satisfaction of the court or Comelec that the integrity
of the ballots has been preserved should it adopt the result as shown by the recount and not as
reflected in the election returns.
First, there was no indication at all that it ever considered the condition of the ballot boxes at the
time they were delivered to the Comelec for revision. Second, it placed the burden of proving
actual tampering of the ballots on petitioner herein (the protestee below) notwithstanding
private respondents previous manifestation that most of the ballot boxes bore overt signs of
tampering[28] and only 79 ballot boxes were found intact. Third, instead of diligently examining
whether the ballot boxes were preserved with such care as to preclude any reasonable
opportunity for tampering with their contents, the Second Division made the probative value of
the revised ballots dependent solely on whether spurious ballots were found among them.
138. GEROMO v. COMELEC

Facts:

In view of the conflicting reports of the hand-writing experts presented by petitioner-protestee and private respondent-
protestant, the Trial Court, at its own instance, opened the ballot boxes of voting centers Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 34 and 36, and
grouped the ballots in accordance with the groupings made by Wilfredo Espina, petitioner's hand-writing expert. In the
language of the Trial Court, after a "meticulous examination, it disregarded the opinion of hand writing experts.

Issue:

WON Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the findings of handwriting experts.

Ruling:

NO.

A trial court may disregard findings of handwriting experts. The act of respondent Court in disregarding the opinion of
the handwriting experts presented in Court by the parties and in conducting its own examination and making its own
findings does not constitute grave abuse of discretion. Well-settled is the rule that:

“the court may not be made to swallow opinions of experts 'as is' especially when its attention is called to an error in the
expert's conclusions, which the Court was able to confirm".

139. Tolentino vs. COMELEC

Facts:
Tagaytay City Mayor Tolentino (petitioner Tolentino) sought to set aside and annul the by the Second
Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for granting him only an additional period of thirty
(30) days from June 21, 2008 (the date the Order was issued) to reproduce and authenticate documents
and/or to defer the implementation of the September 7, 2007 which is to make an inventory of the
aforesaid 116 protested ballot boxes and its immediate transmittal after an election protests was filed by
the losing candidates.
Issue: WON the COMELEC committed GAD for the delay for issuing the said Order.
Ruling:
No. What the law demands is immediate action on the transmittal of pertinent election documents
for revision and/or recount, not the delay that has attended this case. To be exact, the election
took place 15 months ago and the protest was filed soon after, while the COMELECs order to
transmit the material documents for purposes of revision was dated September 7, 2007 or almost
a year ago counted from the date of this Resolution. Given the local effective officials three-year
term, the one-year delay that has attended the election protest is impermissible and one that the
COMELEC has the obligation to address through its assailed orders; this is a delay that this Court is
likewise mandated not to allow.
140. Villamor vs Comelec
GR Nos. 169865, July 21, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioner was proclaimed as mayor of Carmen Cebu, by MBC over his opponent, respondent Amytis De
Dios-Batao. Respondent filed a petition to annul the proclamation of petitioner alleging as grounds the illegal
composition of the MBC and its proceedings. Subsequently, or on May 24, 2004, respondent filed an election
protest and petitioner filed his Answer to the Petition with Counter Protest on June 7, 2004. However, in its
Order dated June 24, 2004, the trial court dismissed the election protest for lack of jurisdiction because it was
filed one-day late.
Under Section 3, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, an election protest should be filed within
10 days from the date of proclamation of the results of the election. Since petitioner was proclaimed on May
13, 2004, respondent had until May 23, 2004 to file an election protest. However, respondent file the same
only on May 24, 2004, thus, it was dismissed by the trial court in Order dated June 24, 2004. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed by the respondent which was granted by the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration should be entertained.
RULING:
No. The rules in ordinary civil procedure do not apply in election cases except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient. Section 256 of the OEC and Sec. 19, Rule 35 of Comelec
Rules of Procedure clearly state that no motion for reconsideration should be entertained. Thus, there is no
room to apply the rules of ordinary civil procedure suppletorily. Nor can resort be made by the trial court to
Sec. 5 of Rule 135 of the Rules to sustain its action. The trial court did not conform to law and justice when it
granted the motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading.
141. Panlilio vs Comelec G.R. 181478, July 15, 2009

Facts: Parties herein were two of the contending gubernatorial candidates in the province of Pampanga
during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections. The Provincial BOC of Pampanga proclaimed
petitioner as the duly elected governor of Pampanga having garnered the highest number of votes of
(219,706) votes with a winning margin of (1,147) votes over the 218,559 votes of private respondent.
Private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner on several grounds (Vote-buying, Ballots
prepared by persons other than the voters themselves, fake or unofficial ballots, Votes in the ballots
lawfully and validly cast in favor of protestant were deliberately misread and/or mis-appreciated, etc.).
COMELEC Second Division, issued the first assailed order giving due course to private respondents
election protest and directed among others, the revision of ballots pertaining to the protested precincts of
the Province of Pampanga. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order but the
same was denied by the same Division. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to certify his earlier motion
for reconsideration at the COMELEC En Banc; and (2) to stay the COMELECs order directing the collection
of ballot boxes. Thereafter petitioner filed an urgent motion to hold in abeyance the retrieval and
collection of ballot boxes. Comelec en banc issued an order denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion and
consequently lifting and setting aside the order of the Comelec Second Division ordering the Provincial
Election Supervisor (PES) of Pampanga to defer the inventory, sealing and transmittal of the contested
ballot boxes involved in this case.

Issue: WON Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Omnibus motion.

Ruling: No. Since the COMELECs Division issued an interlocutory Order, the same COMELEC Division
should resolve the motion for reconsideration of the Order. The order was only interlocutory and is
not one of the orders required by Comelec rules of Procedure, Sec. 5(C) Rule 3 and Sec. 5 Rule 9, to
be certified to the Comelec en banc. The remedy of the aggrieved party is neither to file a motion for
reconsideration for certification to the COMELEC En Banc nor to elevate the issue to this Court via a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. COMELEC En Banc shall decide
motions for reconsideration only of decisions of a Division, meaning those acts having a final character.
Here, the assailed Second Division order did not completely dispose of the case, as there was something
more to be done, which was to decide the election protest. Being interlocutory, the assailed Second
Division orders may not be resolved by the COMELEC En Banc.

142. DIMAYUGA VS COMELEC

FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent vied for the mayoralty post of the Municipality of San Pascual, Batangas.
Private respondent won so petitioner filed an election protest to which he was declared winner by the RTC.
Pending appeal (filed by private respondent) the court granted petitioner’s motion on the execution of its
judgement pending appeal.

Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc adopted a Resolution petition directing a STATUS QUO ANTE suspending
the assumption of the respondent of the office of the mayor pending per the order of execution of judgment
pending appeal granted by public respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Batangas City. A
petition for certiorari has been filed before the court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be dismissed.

RULING: YES
The power of this Court to review decisions of the COMELEC as prescribed in Section 7, Article IX-A of the
Constitution refers to final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC en banc, in accordance with the
pronouncement in Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections. Hence, the status quo ante order of the COMELEC en
banc, being in the nature of an interlocutory order, will not be reviewed herein by this Court.

143. Soriano Jr. vs Comelec GR. 164496-505

Facts: Petitioners and private respondents were candidates for City Council for the First and Second Districts of
Muntinlupa City in the 10 May 2004 elections. Board of Canvassers proclaimed private respondents as the duly
elected Councilors. Petitioners filed election protest cases against private respondents, contesting the results
of the elections in all the 603 precincts of the First District and the 521 precincts of the Second District of
Muntinlupa City. COMELEC First Division issued two identical orders. The first order directed petitioners
(protestants) to deposit P454,020 each to the COMELEC Cash Division to defray expenses under Section 8, Rule
20 of the COMELEC Rules, in the revision of 603 protested precincts in the First District of Muntinlupa City. The
order also directed respondents (protestees) to deposit same amount for the counter-protested precincts in
the First District of Muntinlupa City. The second order directed petitioners (protestants) to deposit P408,990
each to the COMELEC Cash Division in the revision of 521 protested precincts in the Second District of
Muntinlupa. The order also directed respondents (protestees). to deposit P408,990 each to the COMELEC Cash
Division in the revision of 521 counter-protested precincts in the Second District of Muntinlupa. Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Orders dated 26 June 2004. The COMELEC First Division denied the
motion in an Order dated 30 July 2004. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The COMELEC First Division
issued another Order, dismissing the protests and counter-protestsfor failure of the protestants and protestees
to pay the required cash deposits.

Issue: Whether or not an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division be the subject of certiorari to the SC?

Ruling: As a rule No. In general, interlocutory orders of the COMELEC Division are not appealable, nor can
they be proper subject of a petition for certiorari. However, when the interlocutory order of a COMELEC
Division is a patent nullity because of absence of jurisdiction to issue the interlocutory order, as where a
COMELEC Division issued a temporary restraining order without a time limit, the aggrieved party can still
assign as error the interlocutory order if in the courseof the proceedings s/he decides to appeal the main case
to the COMELEC En Banc.
144. Jumamil vs. Comelec (2007)

Facts:

 Petitioner Jumamil & private respondent Purog both ran for Mayor of the Municipality of
Victoria, Northern Samar, during the 10 May 2004 synchronized national & local elections.
Petitioner Centino & private respondent Verde were vice mayoralty candidates; whilst
petitioners Castillo, Millano & Francisco & private respondents Aliluyah, Medice, Subiaga &
Aucente all ran for slots as Board Members of the Sangguniang Bayan.
o Private respondents were all proclaimed winners.
  Petitioners individually filed election protest cases w/c were later consolidated, before
the RTC of Allen, Northern Samar. Complainants cast doubt on the results of the elections,
particularly respecting 7/36 functioning precincts in the subject municipality.
 Private respondents moved for dismissal.
o They included in their Answer w/ Affirmative Defense & Counter-Protest/Counter-
Claim a prayer for the conduct of a hearing & pre-trial prior to the commencement of the
revision process.
 RTC issued a Resolution denying the motion to have the cases dismissed for lack of
CoA as well as the prayer.
 Their MR having been denied, private respondents elevated to the COMELEC, via a
Petition for Certiorari, the denial of their MTD & to conduct hearing, as well as pre-trial, prior to
the commencement of the revision of the ballots. They also asked for the issuance of a TRO
&/or the issuance of a WPI in order to suspend the revision proceedings by the RTC.
 1st Division of COMELEC issued the writ.
 SC: Petitions for Certiorari, under Rules 64 & 65 of the RoC founded on the basic
premise that COMELEC committed GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
effectively enjoined the RTC from proceeding with the conduct of the case
 COMELEC filed its Comment to subject Petitions.

Issue: WON Order of COMELE can be reviewed by the SC

Ruling: No. For a decision to be elevated to the Supreme Court, it must be a final decision or
resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, not of a division. Section 7 of the OEC provides that a decision,
order or ruling of COMELEC may be elevated to the Supreme Court on certiorari by an aggrieved
party. Final order or resolution interpreted to mean final orders, rulings and decisions of the
COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The Supreme Court
has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of
the COMELEC.

145. DIVINAGRACIA VS. COMELEC

FACTS:
Petitioner Divinagracia and private respondent Centena are opponents for the vice-mayoralty race in
Calinog, Ilolo.
After the voting and the canvassing of the votes, petitioner was proclaimed winner. Thereafter,
respondent filed an election protest before the RTC which dismissed the same.
Both parties filed an appeal before the COMELEC upon notice of appeal and paying the filing fees.
COMELEC second division reversed the RTC’s decision and thereby proclaimed respondent as the
true winner.
Petitioner then filed his motion of reconsideration; he alleged that the appeal must be dismissed on
the ground that the required appeal fees are not paid.
COMELEC en banc did not take heed and affirm the COMELEC second division’s decision. It ruled
that petitioner was barred under the doctrine of estoppel by laches when he failed to raise the
question of jurisdiction when he filed his Appellant’s and Appellee’s Briefs.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the notice of appeal can still be filed.
Ruling: No. Notices of appeal filed after the promulgation of this decision, errors in the matter of non-
payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases are no longer excusable.
The issue of lack of jurisdiction for non-payment of the appeal fee only after the COMELEC
appreciated the contested ballots and ruled in favor of a candidate constitutes estoppel by laches
when both parties have failed to pay the proper appeal fee.
146. Nollen Jr. vs Comelec

Respondent Susana M. Caballes and petitioner Mateo R. Nollen, Jr. were candidates for punong barangay of
Gibanga, Sariaya, Quezon. Nollen won. Dissatisfied with the result, Caballes instituted an election protest. MTC
rendered a decision declaring Caballes as punong barangay-elect. Nollen filed on June 5, 2008 his notice of
appeal and paid the MTC the appeal fee of PhP 1,000. COMELEC dismissed Nollen’s appeal for his failure to
pay the appeal fee of PhP 3,000 (plus bailiff fee of P200) prescribed by Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure within the reglementary period of five (5) days.

Issue: W/N Nollen’s petition should be given due course.

Ruling: Yes.

Petitioner’s failure to pay the remaining PhP 3,200 within the prescribed period cannot be taken against
him, since the COMELEC failed to notify him regarding the additional appeal fee, as provided by Resolution
No. 8654. Although Nollen, following superseded jurisprudence, failed to pay the filing fee on time, he
nonetheless voluntarily paid the remaining PhP 3,200 appeal fee on October 6, 2008. We, thus, credit him for
remitting the amount of PhP 3,200, which, applying extant rules and prevailing jurisprudence, cannot be
considered as having been belatedly paid.

The warning given in Divinagracia (case 145) is inapplicable to the case at bar, since the notice of appeal in the
instant case was filed on June 5, 2008. Resolution 8654 was promulgated on August 4, 2009.
147. SAN MIGUEL vs COMELEC (AGAIN MAHABA ANG RULING SA BOOK AMFUFU)

FACTS: Petitioner Michael San Miguel and private respondent Christopher Aguilar vied in the elections
for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Marcelo Green in Paranñ aque City.

After petitioner’s proclamation, private respondent filed an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Paranñ aque City which, after recount and revision of ballots from the contested precincts, ruled
that private respondent garnered 2,898 votes or 12 votes more than the 2,886 votes received by
petitioner and accordingly annulled petitioner’s proclamation, by Decision of May 9, 2008.
Petitioner filed with the trial court a Notice of Appeal to the Comelec. The appeal is still pending.

Meanwhile, three days after the promulgation of the trial court’s Decision or on May 12, 2009, private
respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal which was received by petitioner on
May 13, 2008 with notice of a May 14, 2008 hearing. The trial court calendared the hearing, however, on
May 19, 2008, and eventually denied the Urgent Motion by Order of May 22, 2008.

In not granting a special order to execute its decision pending appeal, the trial court explained that it
could no longer order execution since the above-quoted rule allows the issuance of a special order only
within the five-day period to appeal which, at that time, had already expired.

Petitioner posits that the Rules of Procedure expressly provide that the special order should be issued
before the expiration of the five-day period to file a notice of appeal.

ISSUE: W/N The trial court may still thereafter resolve a motion for execution pending appeal

RULING: YES. Evident from the usage of the word "may," the language of the subject provision denotes
that it is merely directory, and not mandatory, for the trial court to issue the special order before the
expiration of the period to appeal. The trial court may still thereafter resolve a motion for execution
pending appeal, provided: (i) the motion is filed within the five-day reglementary period; and (ii) the
special order is issued prior to the transmittal of the records to the Comelec.

Both parties concede that the motion for execution pending appeal must be filed within the five-day
period to appeal. In the present case, the Urgent Motion was filed well within the reglementary period.

Indeed, in one case, the Court construed a similarly phrased provision to mean that the ruling on the
motion for execution may issue after the period of appeal, as long as the motion for execution pending
appeal was filed before the expiration of the time to appeal.

Keeping in mind that "hurried justice is not always authentic justice," the permissive nature of the rule
allows the trial court to apply the same insofar as it is practicable, albeit the rigid compliance therewith is
not altogether impossible, such that a motion for execution pending appeal may be filed at the latest on
the second day after notice of the decision, and heard and resolved at the latest on the fifth day after
notice of the decision, in compliance with the mandatory three-day notice rule, barring any intervening
resetting or non-working days.

It also appears that the prevailing party need not check first if the losing party actually appealed the case
before the prevailing party could file a motion for execution pendente lite. The setting of the same period
of five days for the filing of a motion for execution pending appeal, similar to that for a notice of appeal,
allows the trial court to expediently rule on this incident, along with the notice of appeal, before
transmitting the records to the Comelec, during which the trial court shall have already lost jurisdiction to
resolve pending incidents.

In other words, the special order directing the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal must
be issued prior to the transmittal of the records to Electoral Contests Adjudication Department of
the Comelec.
148. Pecson vs Comelec

Facts:
 Pecson and Cunanan were candidates for the mayoralty position in the Municipality of Magalang, Province
of Pampanga. Cunanan was proclaimed the winning candidate. Cunanan took his oath and assumed the position
of Mayor of Magalang. Pecson filed an election protest. The RTC rendered a Decision in Pecson's favor. Cunanan
filed a Notice of Appeal.

The RTC issued an Order noting the filing of the notice of appeal and the payment of appeal fee and
directing the transmittal of the records of the case to the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) of the
COMELEC. Pecson, on the other hand, filed an Urgent Motion for Immediate Execution Pending Appeal, claiming
that Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts Involving Elective
Municipal and Barangay Officials (Rules) allows this remedy. The RTC granted Pecson's motion for execution
pending appeal via a Special Order. Cunanan moved to reconsider the order

Comelec nullified the order on the ground that the RTC could no longer issue the order because it had lost
jurisdiction over the case after transmittal of the records and the perfection of the appeals of both Cunanan and
Pecson (to be accurate, the lapse of Pecson's period to appeal).

Issue: W/N Comelec was correct in nullifying the order

Ruling:

No. The writ of execution issued by the RTC is a mere administrative enforcement medium of the Special
Order—the main order supporting Pecson’s motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. The writ itself cannot
and does not assume a life of its own independent from the Special Order on which it is based. Certainly, its
nullification does not carry with it the nullification of the Special Order. This consequence does not of course hold
true in the reverse situation—the nullification of the Special Order effectively carries with it the nullification of its
implementing writ and removes the basis for the issuance of another implementing writ. In the present case, the
reality is that if and when we ultimately affirm the validity of the Special Order, nothing will thereafter prevent the
RTC from issuing another writ.

149. Santos v. COMELEC, et al.

FACTS: Santos and respondent were candidates for Mayor. Respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected
Mayor. Petitioner filed an election protest before the lower court which found petitioner as the duly elected
Municipal Mayor, and setting aside as null and void the proclamation of respondent.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for execution pending appeal. Meanwhile, respondent filed with the
COMELEC a petition for certiorari, assailing the decision of the trial court. Likewise, respondent appealed the
trial court’s decision to the COMELEC.
The COMELEC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, which effectively enjoined the trial court from acting on
petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the trial court’s order granting
execution pending appeal.
RULING: YES. The grant of execution pending appeal after the trial court rendered judgment declaring the
protestant as the duly elected mayor was well within its discretionary powers. In order to obtain the
annulment of the order in a petition for certiorari, it must be proved that the trial court gravely abused its
discretion. He should show not merely a reversible error committed by the trial court, but a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
“Grave abuse of discretion” implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion
or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Mere abuse of discretion
is not enough.

150. Fermo vs. Comelec

Facts:
LAXINA and FERMO- candidates for the position of Punong Brgy. in QC. (1997 elections) LAXINA was
proclaimed winner
FERMO- filed election protest question results in 4 clustered precincts on ground of massive fraud and serious
irregularities.
MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) and granted a motion for execution pending appeal.
COMELEC reversed on ground that the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time
appeal is decided—not a “good reason” to warrant execution pending appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
jurisdiction in annulling the order of the MTC granting herein petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal
on the ground that there were no "good reasons" for the issuance therefor.
Held:
No.
A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it should be based
“upon good reasons to be stated in a special order.”(Sec. 2 Rule 39 Rules of Court) The following constitute
“good reasons” and a combination of two or more of them will suffice to grant execution pending appeal: (1)
public interest involved or will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the
contested office; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending. (Book)

Shortness of remaining term- not good reason for execution of judgment pending appeal—RA 8524: extended term of
office of Brgy. officials to 5 years (negates claim of FERMO) (Additional info)

Petitioner's argument that COMELEC's nullification of the MTC order does not imply that LAXINA is entitled to
discharge the functions of Punong Barangay and that FERMO should cease and desist from performing said
functions is flawed. The order of the COMELEC annulling the grant of execution pending appeal would be
inutile if it did not have the effect of authorizing LAXINA to discharge the functions of Punong Barangay during
the pendency of the appeal. When the COMELEC nullified the writ of execution pending appeal in favor of
FERMO, the decision of the MTC proclaiming FERMO as the winner of the election was stayed and the "status
quo" or the last actual peaceful uncontested situation preceding the controversy was restored. Thus, the
COMELEC correctly ordered FERMO to cease and desist from performing the functions of Punong Barangay
considering that LAXINA was the proclaimed winner of the election prior to FERMO's filing of the election
protest. The order for FERMO to relinquish his post to LAXINA pending final resolution of the appeal is a logical
and necessary consequence of the denial of execution pending appeal. (Additional info)

151. Malaluan vs Comelec

Facts:
Petitioner Luis Malaluan and private respondent Jose Evangelista were both mayoralty candidates in
the Municipality of Kidapawan, North Cotabato. Private respondent was proclaimed by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers as the duly elected Mayor. Petitioner filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court. The trial
court declared petitioner as the duly elected municipal mayor. Acting without precedent, the court found
private respondent liable not only for Malaluan’s protest expenses but also for moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees. Petitioner filed a motion for execution pending appeal which was granted by the court
after the posting a bond of P500,000.00. Subsequently the First Division of the Comelec ordered Malaluan to
vacate the office. The Comelec en banc affirmed said decision. Malaluan filed this petition for certiorari and
prohibition as a consequence. It is significant to note that the term of office of the local officials elected in the
May 1992 elections expired on June 30, 1995. This petition, thus, has become moot and academic insofar as it
concerns petitioner’s right to the mayoralty seat because expiration of the term of office contested in the
election protest has the effect of rendering the same moot and academic.
Issue:

Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in awarding the aforecited damages in favor of
private respondent.
Held:
Yes.
The actuations of the trial court, after the filing of a case before it, are its own, and any alleged error on its part does not,
in the absence of clear proof, make the suit clearly unfounded for which the complainant ought to be penalized. Insofar
as the award of protest expenses and attorneys fees are concerned, therefore we find them to have been awarded by
respondent COMELEC without basis, the election protest not having been a clearly unfounded one under the
aforementioned circumstances.

Respondent COMELEC also found the order granting execution of judgment pending appeal to be defective
because of alleged non-compliance with the requirement that there be a good and special reason to justify execution
pending appeal

However, the trial court acted judiciously in the exercise of its prerogatives under the law in issuing
the order granting execution pending appeal. First, it should be noted that the applicability of the provisions
of the Rules of Court, relating to execution pending appeal, has ceased to be debatable after we definitively
rule in Garcia v. de Jesus, that “Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which allows the Regional Trial
Courts to order execution pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special order, may be made to
apply by analogy or suppletorily to election contests decided by them.” It is not disputed that petitioner
filed a bond in the amount of P500,000.00 as required under the Rules of Court. (Book)
 152. Tobon Uy vs, Comelec (Execution pending appeal)
Facts:
The jurisdiction of the Comelec to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in electoral contests
involving municipal and barangay officials is the common question addressed in the election case.
The Isabela Case: Neyra was proclaimed Mayor. Tobon Uy filed an election protest before the RTC. Then, RTC
declared Tobon Uy the winner by a majority vote of 5 votes over Neyra. On the same day, Neyra filed a Notice
of Appeal and Tobon Uy filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. A day before the day set for hearing,
Neyra filed before the Comelec a Petition for Certiorari and/or prohibition seeking to enjoin RTC from further
acting on Tobon Uy’s Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
Issue: W/N the trial court can be deprived of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal.
Ruling: NO
To deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would, bring back the ghost of the
“grab-the-proclamations-prolong the protest” techniques so often resorted to by devious politicians in the past
in their efforts to perpetuate their hold an elective office. This would, as a consequence, lay to waste the will
of the electorate.

153. FERNANDO U. BATUL vs LUCILO BAYRON G.R. No. 158959. February 26, 2004
FACTS:
Batul and respondent Lucilo R. Bayron were candidates for vice-mayor of Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan. Batul won. Bayron filed an election protest with the COMELEC claiming there were
anomalies and irregularities which marred the conduct of the elections. Hence, the COMELEC
annulled Batul’s proclamation. Batul filed an appeal. Bayron filed a motion for immediate execution
pending appeal which was granted.

ISSUE: WON decisions of the COMELEC can be executed pending appeal?

HELD:
Yes. Judgments that may be executed pending appeal need not be only those rendered by the trial
court, but also by the COMELEC as well. In Ramas vs Comelec, it did not declare that such remedy is
exclusive to barangay and municipal officials as argued by Batul. Section 2 of Rule 1 of the Rules of
Court provides that the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily to election contests, including those
involving city and provincial officials. Hence, execution pending appeal is allowed.
154. Balajonda vs Comelec

Petitioner Elenita Balajonda (Balajonda) was proclaimed as the duly elected Barangay Chairman. Her opponent
Maricel Francisco filed a petition for election protest, within 10 days from the date of proclamation. MeTC
dismissed the protest with its finding that Balajonda still led Francisco by 418 votes. Francisco appealed the
MeTC Decision to the COMELEC. Comelec reversed the decision and annulled petitioner’s proclamation.
Balajonda filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In the meantime, Francisco filed a Motion for Execution praying
for a writ of execution in accordance with Section 2(a) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. Motion
granted.

Issue: W/N that COMELEC may order the immediate execution only of the decision of the trial court but not its
own decision.
Ruling: No.

The public policy underlying the suppletory application of Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 is to obviate a hollow victory for
the duly elected candidate as determined by either the courts or the COMELEC. 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.
154. Caroloto vs. Comelec
Facts:

Petitioner Pet Angeli R. Carloto and private respondent Mariano C. Candelaria vied for the mayoralty post in
the Municipality of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte in the May 10, 2004 elections.

Upon losing to Caroloto, private respondent filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Liloy,
Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 28, docketed as SE-03, alleging massive fraud and irregularities in the conduct of
the election purportedly employed by petitioner to ensure her victory.

The trial court rendered its decision declaring private respondent as the winning mayoralty candidate after it
annulled the election results in four precincts of the Municipality of Gutalac on the ground that rampant
irregularities took place in violation of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881)

Petitioner filed her notice of appeal with the trial court. The cases were docketed as EAC No. A-27-2005 and
EAC No. A-28-2005 and were later consolidated.

Meanwhile, private respondent moved for the execution of the trial court’s decision pending appeal, citing
the following reasons: a) public interest; b) shortness of the remaining portion of the term of the contested
office; and, c) the length of time that the election contest had been pending which Comelec allowed.

Petitioner seeks the nullification of the resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), First Division,
and the COMELEC en banc, allowing execution pending appeal the decision of public respondent Judge Arturo
M. Paculanang of the Regional Trial Court of Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte declaring private respondent as the
duly elected mayor of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte in the May 10, 2004, Synchronized National and Local
Elections.
Issue: WON an execution pending appeal is proper in the case at bar?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court agrees that these constitute justifiable and good reasons for the issuance of an order of
execution pending appeal
1. case has been pending for more than one (1) year by reason of protestee’s delaying tactics, (to be precise
for almost seventeen (17) months;
2. the remaining portion of the term of the contested office is also more than one (1) year before it will be
due for the next election (to be precise, for almost twenty (20) months from now; and,
3. by reason of public interest,
It was held that the grant of execution pending appeal would give substance and meaning to the people’s
mandate because they had the right to be governed by their chosen mayor, and barely eighteen months
were left in the tenure of the Mayor.
155. Lim v Comelec (2007)
Facts:
Diego T. Lim, petitioner, and Francisco C. Adalim, private respondent, were candidates for mayor in Taft,
Eastern Samar. The MBOC of Taft proclaimed Lim as the duly elected mayor with a lead of 45 votes. PR filed an
election protest against petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the election protest on the ground that
private respondent failed to pay the exact amount of docket and other legal fees prescribed by the COMELEC,
but the motion was denied. The case was brought before Comelec en banc by the petitioner but same was
denied.
3 days thereafter, respondent Judge promulgated her Decision in the election protest declaring private
respondent the winning candidate in the May 10, 2004 mayoralty race with a lead of 456 votes as against
petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner filed a notice of appeal.
For his part, private respondent filed a motion for execution pending appeal. It was set for hearing on
August 11, 2005. An opposition thereto was filed by petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the grant of the execution pending appeal by the TC is justified
Ruling: YES
As correctly found by the trial court, the grant of the execution pending appeal is justified considering
the presence of these good reasons: the public interest or will of the electorate, as well as the shortness of
the remaining term of the contested office, thus: Examination of the motion for execution pending appeal
with the opposition thereto, indeed reveals that the motion for execution pending appeal is with merit. There
being, therefore, good reasons to grant the same, taking into consideration that this involves public interest
which will be better served and it would give meaning to the electoral will in Taft, Eastern Samar, if their
chosen Mayor, the protestant herein, should immediately sit as Mayor and govern them, as the one being
found to be the true winner in the mayoralty race for Taft, Eastern Samar and should have been sitting as such
from July 1, 2004 to the present but was not able to sit; that as of today, more than one-third of the very short
term of office of three (3) years has already expired or lapsed (as of today, barely two (2) months is left on the
tenure of the Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar); and, further, depriving the herein protestant the assumption of
the duties and functions of the Office of the Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar will only resurrect the evils that the
Court has long sought to contain, the "grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest" technique, which route
herein protestee is now taking.

156. Istarul vs. Comelec

Facts: Maturan (private respondent), Istarul (petitioner) as well Munap H. Pacio and
Ahmad Atahal ran for the position of mayor of the municipality of Tipo-Tipo, Basilan.
Maturan was proclaimed elected mayor. Thereafter, Istarul and Pacio filed an election
protest. Pacio, another losing candidate, also filed his protest. Both cases were assigned
to the Comelec First Division which annulled the proclamation of Maturan and declares
protestant Istarul as the duly elected Mayor.

Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal. Istarul the following day filed his Motion
for Execution Pending Appeal. After the hearing, Comelec Ist Division issued a
Writ of Execution. The Following day, an instant petition was filed. On the same day,
this Commission (First Division) issued a Temporary Restraining/Status Quo Ante Order.
After hearing, issued a Resolution holding that there are no good reasons to justify the
issuance of the Special Order granting execution pending appeal, that a mere statement
about the length of time that the case had been pending in the trial court do not support
the issuance of said Order. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was
referred to the COMELEC En Banc. However, it affirmed the aforementioned resolution.

Issue: WON the COMELEC 1 st Division and En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling: No. As held in the case of Fermo vs. Comelec, “the shortness of term,” alone
and by itself cannot justify premature execution. It must be manifest in the
decision sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the
victory of the protestant has been clearly established.
157. Balingit vs Comelec G.R. No. 170300 (Execution pending appeal)

Facts: Yamat and Balingit were Punong Barangay candidates of Nigui, Masantol, Pampanga. Yamat obtained
257 votes, Balingit had 250 votes. Yamat won. Thereafter, Balingit filed an election protest with the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Macabebe-Masantol, Macabebe, Pampanga, alleging fraud in the counting and
preparation of the election returns. After revision of the ballots, the tally turned out with Balingit with 249
votes, but with Yamat having 172 votes. The MCTC declared Balingit as the duly elected punong barangay.

Yamat appealed to the COMELEC. On the other hand, Balingit filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal of
the MCTC Decision which was granted by the COMELEC Second Division. The COMELEC Second Division
rendered its Resolution on Yamat's appeal, reversing the MCTC Decision. Thus, a total of 252 votes were
considered in favor of Yamat, with Balingit still having the same number of votes – 249.

Balingit filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC Resolution with the COMELEC En Banc but it was
denied. Yamat was proclaimed the punong barangay. COMELEC En Banc ordered Balingit to vacate the
contested post in favor of Yamat. Considering the proximity of the end of the term of the contested office in
this case, this resolution was declared immediately executory.

Issue: Did the COMELEC EN BANC commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the immediate execution of
the assailed resolution?

Held: No. The issuance of the COMELEC of the immediate execution of its assailed resolution due to the
proximity of the end of the term of the contested office is not tainted with any abuse of discretion. COMELEC,
being the specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections, is presumed to be aware of the passage
of R.A. No. 9340 which extended the term of the barangay and SK. The COMELEC need not justify the
immediate execution of its decision with such proximity of elections. COMELEC is a specialized agency tasked
with the supervision of elections all over the country. Thus, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and
decisions rendered by COMELEC falling within its competence cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court
provided that, there is absence of any grave abuse of discretion on its part.

Yamat Balingit
1st tally - 257 votes 250 votes
2nd tally - 172 votes 249 votes
Last tally - 252 votes 249 votes

158 Calo vs Comelec

FACTS: Respondent Ramon M. Calo was proclaimed winner in the May 14, 2007 mayoralty race in the
Municipality of Carmen, Province of Agusan del Sur.His opponent, petitioner Jesus M. Calo, is his brother,
whom he beat by 278 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City,
questioning the election results. The RTC issued its decision on the protest finding petitioner to have received
the majority votes and declaring him the duly elected mayor.Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ
of execution pending appeal.On February 15, 2008, the RTC issued its special order granting petitioner's
motion for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the COMELEC raising as ground the grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC. The
COMELEC First Division issued its resolution granting the petition, setting aside the RTC special order dated
February 15, 2008, quashing the accompanying writ of execution, issuing a status quo anteorder directing the
parties to observe the status quo prevailing prior to the February 15, 2008 special order and directing
respondent to continue as the municipal mayor of the Municipality of Carmen.

Issue: Won Comelec’s act of setting aside the RTC ruling was proper.

Held: No. The relevant rule provides that a motion for execution pending appeal filed by the prevailing party
shall contain a three-day notice to the adverse party and execution pending appeal shall not issue without
prior notice and hearing. It should be emphasized that these requirements are for the purpose of avoiding
surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party who must be given time to study and meet the
arguments in the motion before a resolution by the court. Where a party had the opportunity to be heard,
then the purpose has been served and the requirement substantially complied with. In this case, even the
COMELEC admitted that respondent was heard and afforded his day in court; hence, it should not have
annulled the RTC special order on said ground.

159. Santos v Comelec GR No. 155618 2003

Facts: Petitioner Edgar Y. Santos and respondent Pedro Q. Panulaya were both candidates for Mayor of the
Municipality of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections. Panulaya was proclaimed the
Mayor. Santos filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental which found that
petitioner garnered 2,181 votes while respondent received only 2,105. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for
execution pending appeal. Meanwhile, before the trial court could act on petitioner’s motion, respondent filed
with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari. Likewise respondent appealed the trial court’s decision to the
COMELEC. The COMELEC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, which effectively enjoined the trial court
from acting on petitioners motion for execution pending appeal. Subsequently, COMELEC dismissed the
petition for certiorari. Moreover, the COMELEC held that the remedy from the decision of the court a quo was
to file a notice of appeal, which respondent precisely did. Hence, it directed the trial court to dispose of all
pending incidents with dispatch. Later, petitioner was installed as the Mayor.
Issue: WON the respondent committed forum shopping
Ruling: Yes. Where the protestee in an election contest for municipal mayor was found to have actually
garnered less votes than the protestant and the court rendered judgment setting aside his proclamation, and
the winning protesteant filed a motion for execution pending appeal, but before it was acted upon, the
protestee filed with the Comelec a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the trial court and
subsequently filed an appeal from the trial court’s decision, and thereafter filed another petition containing
the same prayer as his supplemental petition, the protestee was guilty of forum shopping. The Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course, instead of dismissing outright, the petition despite
the clear showing that he was guilty of forum-shopping; and in setting aside the trial court’s order granting
execution pending appeal. (From the book)
It is at once apparent from the records, as shown above, that respondent was guilty of forum-shopping.
Forum-shopping is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one
forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special
civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the
same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

160. Alvarez v COMELEC GR No. 142527 March 1, 2000

Facts: On May 12, 1997, petitioner Arsenio Alvarez, with 590 votes, was proclaimed
Punong Barangay of Doña Aurora, Quezon City, his opponent, private respondent Abad-
Sarmiento, obtained 585 votes. Private respondent filed an election protest in the
Metropolitan Trial Court claiming irregularities in the reading and appreciation of ballots
by the Board of Election Inspectors. After a recount of the ballots in the contested
precincts, the Trial Court ruled that the private respondent won the election, garnering
596 votes while petitioner got 550 votes. On appeal, the COMELEC’s Second Division
ruled that private respondent won over petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. Meanwhile, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution pending
appeal which petitioner opposed. The COMELEC En Banc denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and affirmed the decision of the Second Division. It granted the Motion
for Execution pending appeal. Petitioner brought before the Supreme Court this petition
for Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, denying the Motion for
Reconsideration of herein petitioner and affirming the Resolution of its Second Division
alleging that the COMELEC En Banc granted the respondents Motion for Execution
pending appeal when the appeal was no longer pending, thus the motion had become
obsolete and unenforceable.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
prematurely acted on the Motion for Execution pending appeal?

Ruling: We note that when the motion for execution pending appeal was filed, petitioner
had a motion for reconsideration before the Second Division. This pending motion for
reconsideration suspended the execution of the resolution of the Second Division.
Appropriately then, the division must act on the motion for reconsideration. Thus, when
the Second Division resolved both petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and private
respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal, it did so in the exercise of its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Correspondingly, we do not find that the COMELEC
abused its discretion when it allowed the execution pending appeal. Petition is
DISMISSED, and the En Banc Resolution of the COMELEC is AFFIRMED.

Book: Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. - When the Commission en banc is
equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be
reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be
dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the judgment
or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the petition or
motion shall be denied.

160.5. GR. 157004 May 5, 2000

Sally A. Lee v. COMELEC

FACTS: Lee and PR Dioneda are mayoralty candidates in Sorsogon City. Dioneda’s counsel opposed to the
inclusion of an election return by reason that no entries were made for the position of congressman and
that LDP watchers were utilized to fill up such returns. BOC found that the questioned return was clear
and regular on its face and there’s no pre-proclamation for HRET members and party list. PR filed on the
same day a notice of appeal of the BOC ruling. Lee was proclaimed. COMELEC 2 nd div. granted PR’s
petition and excluded the returns concerned, nullifying Lee’s proclamation.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed procedural lapses in the promulgation of the resolutions.

HELD: No. Lee argues that the January 10, 2003 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division was
promulgated without giving her notice, and that were it not for her counsel’s "accidental" visit to the
COMELEC on January 13, 2003, said counsel would not have known that said resolution was already
promulgated and the 5-day period from the date of promulgation to file a motion for reconsideration, as
provided under the following provision of Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, would have
lapsed.
The additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC Rules on advance notice of promulgation
does not form part of the process of promulgation and that the failure to serve such notice in
advance did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did not vitiate the validity of the decision
nor of the promulgation, as the period for the unsatisfied party to move for reconsideration can be
exercised – not from the date of promulgation, as misconstrued by petitioner, but from her actual
receipt of a copy of the resolution in question. [Doctrine found in Lindo v. COMELEC]
160.8 Juliano v Comelec

Facts: Petitioner filed an ex parte petition to replace membership of the first CBOC and was granted by the
Commission; that the second CBOC was chaired by Atty. Jubil Surmieda and conducted canvassing proceedings

that the Bedol Board proclaimed respondent Sema as the duly elected Mayor of Cotabato City; that petitioner
filed on June 2, 2004 a consolidated petition to nullify canvass proceedings and/or proclamation undertaken by
the CBOC on June 1, 2004. There are 108 contested election returns which petitioner alleged to be spurious
and manufactured, and will adversely affect the result of the election if the respective votes of the parties be
deducted from the final tally. Comelec denied his claims. He sought for reconsideration and it was equally
divided. The motion was dismissed.

Issue: W/N Comelec En Banc committed grave abuse when it failed to give petitioner the rehearing required by
the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

Ruling: Yes.

B: when the voting of the Comelec Banc on therein petitioner's motion for reconsideration was equally
divided, the Comelec En Banc first issued an order setting the case for hearing and allowed the parties to
submit their respective memoranda before voting anew on therein pettitioner's motion for reconsideration.
This should have been proper for reconsideration when the first voting was equally divided. Its o Rules of
Procedure calls for a rehearing where the parties would have the opportunity to strengthen their respective
positions or arguments and convince the members of the Comelec En Banc of the merit of their case. Thus,
when the Comelec En Banc failed to give petitioner the rehearing required by the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, said body acted with grave abuse of discretion.

161. Lindo v Comelec

Facts:

Lindo was declared as duly elected mayor of Tenate, Cavite. Respondent Velasco who was also a
candidate for the same position filed an election protest contesting results from 19 precincts. Revision showed
substantial variance between the number of votes stated in the election returns and as per physical count of
the ballots in 5 precincts. Thus, private respondent was later declared duly elected mayor. On February 12,
1990, counsel for Lindo, Atty. Amado Montajo, was served a copy of such decision. Lindo, filed a Notice of
Appeal on February 26, 1990, claiming that he knew of the decision only on February 22, 1990. On February
26, 1990, the trial court denied due course to Lindo's appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time.
Issue:

Whether or not period for the filing of an appeal commences from the date the petitioner had
knowledge of the decision

Ruling:

No. The period for the filing of an appeal commences from the date of the receipt of the decision.
The records show that petitioner's counsel of record, Atty. Amador Montajo, received a copy of the decision on
February 12, 1990. The five-day period for petitioner to file his appeal from the decision of the trial court
commenced to run from such date. Petitioner's notice of appeal was filed with the trial court only on February
26, 1990, fourteen (14) days after his counsel was served a copy of the decision. Clearly, his notice was filed
out of time.

162. Alvarez vs. COMELEC

G.R. No 142527

FACTS: Petitioner Arsenio Alvarez, with 590 votes, was proclaimed Punong Barangay of
Doña Aurora, Quezon City, his opponent, private respondent Abad-Sarmiento, obtained
585 votes. Private respondent filed an election protest in the Metropolitan Trial Court
claiming irregularities in the reading and appreciation of ballots by the Board of Election
Inspectors. After a recount of the ballots in the contested precincts, the Trial Court ruled
that the private respondent won the election

On appeal, the COMELEC’s Second Division ruled that private respondent won over
petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, private respondent
filed a Motion for Execution pending appeal which petitioner opposed. The COMELEC En
Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the decision of the Second
Division. It granted the Motion for Execution pending appeal. Petitioner brought before
the Supreme Court this petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the COMELEC En
Banc, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioner and affirming the
Resolution of its Second Division alleging that the COMELEC En Banc granted the
respondents Motion for Execution pending appeal when the appeal was no longer
pending, thus the motion had become obsolete and unenforceable.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
prematurely acted on the Motion for Execution pending appeal?

RULING:

Election cases pertaining to barangay elections may be appealed to the Supreme Court
by way of a special civil action for certiorari. But this recourse is available only when the
COMELEC’s factual determinations are marred by grave abuse of discretion. There is no
such abuse in this case.

163. GUTIERREZ v. COMELEC

Fats:

Patria Gutierrez and Naomi Corral ran for the position of Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of Tiwi, Albay. Corral was
proclaimed elected Mayor and assumed the office.

Asseverating fraud, misappreciation of ballots and other election irregularities, Gutierrez filed a timely protest contesting
the results of the elections in fifty-nine (59) precincts of Tiwi, Albay. In her answer, Corral denied the allegations of
Gutierrez and counter-protested the remaining twenty-six (26) precincts of Tiwi, Albay.

Naomi Corral unexpectedly died on 06 April 1996 and, following her demise, the Vice-Mayor, herein respondent Vicente
Tomas Vera III ("Vera") assumed the office of Municipal Mayor. With leave of court, Vera was allowed to intervene. Vera
filed a complaint/answer where he joined and adopted Corral's answer along with the counter-protest.

Vera's counsel received a copy of the decision of the trial court that Gutierrez won and declaring as null and void the
proclamation of the late Naomi C. Corral as the elected mayor of Tiwi, Albay on June 30, 1995, and instead, hereby
proclaim and declare Patria C. Gutierrez as the duly elected mayor of Tiwi, Albay in the last concluded local elections of
May 8, 1995.

Vera filed before the trial court a notice of appeal, together with an "Opposition to Motion for Execution with Urgent
Motion for Continuance,".

The COMELEC granted the motion for execution pending appeal filed by Gutierrez.

Issue:

WON the COMELEC’s act of granting the motion for execution pending appeal in an electoral protest is proper.

Ruling:

YES.

When the COMELEC resolved both petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and private respondent’s motion for execution
pending appeal in an electoral protest that was appealed to the COMELEC from the Metroplitan Trial Court, it did so in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The requisites for the grant of execution pending appeal are: (a) there must be a
motion by the prevailing party with notice to adverse party; (b) there must be a good reason for the execution pending
appeal; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order. These three requisites were present. In its motion for
execution, private respondent cites that their case had been pending for almost 3 years and the remaining portion of the
contested term was just 2 more years. In a number of similar cases and for some good reasons, the Supreme Court
upheld the COMELEC’s decision to grant execution pending appeal in the best interest of the electorate.
164. Ramas vs. COMELEC
Facts:
The petitioners and the private respondents were the official candidates of the Nationalist People’s
Coalition (NPC) and the Lakas-NUCD, respectively, for the elective municipal positions of Guipos,
Zamboanga del Sur. After the canvass of the election returns, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Guipos
declared and proclaimed the petitioners as the duly elected municipal officials. However, private
respondents the losing candidates filed separate election protests with the RTC of Pagadian City. The trial
court declared petitioner Miranda and all the private respondents except Mabascog as winners. Private
respondents filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of the Consolidated Decision which was granted by
the trial court. This was also affirmed by the COMELEC.
Issue: WON the COMELEC committed GAD for granting the execution pending appeal.
Ruling:
No. The rationale why execution pending appeal is allowed in election cases is “to give as much
recognition to the worth of a trial judge’s decision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the
proclamation by the board of canvassers.
When the COMELEC 2nd Division resolved both petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and private
respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal in an electoral protest that was appealed to the
COMELEC from the MTC, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The requisites for the
grant of execution pending appeal are: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party; (b) there must be a good reason for the execution pending appeal; and
(c) the good reason must be stated in the special order. These three requisites have been present.
The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized and given approval to execution of judgments
pending appeal in election cases filed under existing election laws.
165. Garcia vs Comelec
206 SCRA 779 (1992)
FACTS:
Petitioners Garcia and O’hara were the winning candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively, of Antipolo,
Rizal. Private respondents instituted an election protest. The RTC issued an Order directing the delivery to it of
all ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia used in the 25 protested precincts so that the ballots could be
examined and the votes recounted. Petitioners moved for the suspension of the hearing alleging that an error
was committed in the proceedings because there was no basis for the opening of the ballot boxes and filed a
"Motion To Dismiss Opening Of Ballot Boxes and/or To Dismiss The Protest" which was premised on the ground
that the allegations in the election protest were merely self-serving.

RTC issued an Order limiting the opening of ballot boxes to only nine (9) precincts, and limiting the
examination of the ballot boxes only to those anomalies specified in the annexes attached to the election
protest. The respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the COMELEC.
Petitioners registered their objection that COMELEC was not empowered to take cognizance of Petitions for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus and maintained that the COMELEC denied them due process when it
rendered its questioned Decision without benefit of hearing.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Comelec overstep its authority for granting the execution pending appeal.
RULING:
No. In issuing the assailed writs, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, the COMELEC did not overstep its authority
nor did it act in a capricious, whimsical or despotic manner amounting to grave abuse of discretion equivalent
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When the COMELEC 2nd Division resolved both petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration and private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal in an electoral protest that
was appealed to the COMELEC from the MTC, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The
requisites for the grant of execution pending appeal are: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party
with notice to the adverse party; (b) there must be a good reason for the execution pending appeal; and (c)
the good reason must be stated in the special order. The three requisites were present. The Supreme Court
upheld the Comelec’s decision to grant execution pending appeal in the best interest of the electorate.

166. Alvarez vs Comelec G.R. 142527, March 1, 2001

Facts: On May 12, 1997, petitioner Arsenio Alvarez, with 590 votes, was proclaimed Punong Barangay of
Donñ a Aurora, Quezon City, his opponent, private respondent Abad-Sarmiento, obtained 585 votes. Private
respondent filed an election protest in the Metropolitan Trial Court claiming irregularities in the reading
and appreciation of ballots by the Board of Election Inspectors. After a recount of the ballots in the
contested precincts, the Trial Court ruled that the private respondent won the election, garnering 596
votes while petitioner got 550 votes. On appeal, the COMELEC’s Second Division ruled that private
respondent won over petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, private
respondent filed a Motion for Execution pending appeal which petitioner opposed. The COMELEC En
Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the decision of the Second Division. It granted
the Motion for Execution pending appeal. Petitioner brought before the Supreme Court this petition for
Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of
herein petitioner and affirming the Resolution of its Second Division alleging that the COMELEC En Banc
granted the respondents Motion for Execution pending appeal when the appeal was no longer pending,
thus the motion had become obsolete and unenforceable.

Issue: WON the Comelec abused its discretion when it allowed the execution pending appeal.

Ruling: No. When the motion for execution pending appeal was filed, petitioner had a motion for
reconsideration before the Second Division. This pending motion for reconsideration suspended
the execution of the resolution of the Second Division. Appropriately then, the division must act on
the motion for reconsideration. Thus, when the Second Division resolved both petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration and private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal, it did so in the
exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Correspondingly, we do not find that the COMELEC
abused its discretion when it allowed the execution pending appeal. Petition is DISMISSED, and the En
Banc Resolution of the COMELEC is AFFIRMED.

167. BANAGA VS COMELEC

FACTS

Petitioner and private respondent were the candidates for vice-mayor of the City of Paraaque. Private
respondent was proclaimed. Petitioner filed to annul the proclamation alleging anomalies constituting election
fraud, massive vote buying, and glaring discrepancies.

COMELEC dismissed petitioners suit holding that the grounds relied upon by petitioner do not fall under
the Omnibus Election Code. The election tribunal concluded an election did not result in a failure to elect.

Considering that a motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC en banc ruling is prohibited, except in a case
involving an election offense. Aggrieved, petitioner filed for certiorari with this Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners
petition, in the light of petitioners foregoing contentions.

RULING: NO

While petitioner may have intended to institute an election protest by praying that said action may also be
considered an election protest, in our view, petitioners action is a petition to declare a failure of elections or
annul election results. It is not an election protest.

An en banc decision of COMELEC in an ordinary action becomes final and executory after thirty (30) days
from its promulgation, while an en banc decision in a special action becomes final and executory after five
(5) days from promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. For that reason, a petition cannot be
treated as both an election protest and a petition to declare failure of elections.

168. Dimayuga vs Comelec GR. 174763

Facts: Petitioner and private respondent vied for the mayoralty post of the Municipality of San Pascual,
Batangas. Private respondent won against. Petitioner filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 3, Private respondent filed with the trial court a Notice of Appeal. On the same date, petitioner filed his
Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. The trial court issued a Special Order granting execution pending appeal,
hence, a Writ of Execution was subsequently issued on May 3, 2006. On May 4, 2006, private respondent filed
a petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary
injunction with the COMELEC. The Second Division, issued an Order granting private respondent’s prayer for
the issuance of a TRO. Respondent Judge Galvez is hereby ordered to cease and desist from implementing the
May 2, 2006 Special Order together with the May 3, 2006 Writ of Execution.Respondent Antonio A. Dimayuga
is also hereby ordered to submit his comment and/or answer to the petition within five (5) days from receipt
hereof. Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above resolution, and the case was elevated
to the COMELEC en banc.
In the meantime that the Commission en banc is resolving the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and the
case on the merits, the Commission en banc hereby issues a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER directing both parties
to observe and maintain the status of the case prior to the promulgation of the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 3, Batangas City dated April 18, 2006 effective immediately for a period of sixty (60) days or until
December 9, 2006. In which case, private respondent Antonio A. Dimayuga is hereby directed to cease and
desist from performing the duties and functions of the Mayor of San Pascual, Batangas and to peacefully
vacate the said post in favor of petitioner Mario V. Magsaysay.

Issue: Whether or not only final decision or order may be reviewed by SC

Ruling: Yes. The power of the SC to review under Section 2, rule 64 of the Rules of Court dections of the
Comelec as prescribed in Section 7, Article IX- A of the constitution refers to Final orders, rulings and decitions
of the Comelec En Banc. Hence, the status quo ante order of the Comelec En Banc, being in the nature of an
interlocutory order, will not be reviewed by the SC.

169. ALVAREZ vs. COMELEC (GR No. 142527 March 01, 2001)

Facts: On May 12, 1997, petitioner Arsenio Alvarez, with 590 votes, was proclaimed Punong
Barangay of Doña Aurora, Quezon City, his opponent, private respondent Abad-Sarmiento, obtained
585 votes. Private respondent filed an election protest in the Metropolitan Trial Court claiming
irregularities in the reading and appreciation of ballots by the Board of Election Inspectors. After a
recount of the ballots in the contested precincts, the Trial Court ruled that the private respondent won
the election, garnering 596 votes while petitioner got 550 votes. On appeal, the COMELEC’s Second
Division ruled that private respondent won over petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. Meanwhile, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution pending appeal which
petitioner opposed. The COMELEC En Banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the
decision of the Second Division. It granted the Motion for Execution pending appeal. Petitioner
brought before the Supreme Court this petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioner and affirming the
Resolution of its Second Division alleging that the COMELEC En Banc granted the respondents
Motion for Execution pending appeal when the appeal was no longer pending, thus the motion had
become obsolete and unenforceable.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it prematurely acted
on the Motion for Execution pending appeal?

Held: We note that when the motion for execution pending appeal was filed, petitioner had a motion
for reconsideration before the Second Division. This pending motion for reconsideration suspended
the execution of the resolution of the Second Division. Appropriately then, the division must act on the
motion for reconsideration. Thus, when the Second Division resolved both petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration and private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal, it did so in the
exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

On applicability, The Supreme Court can review decisions of the COMELEC on appeal in election protests involving
barangay officials by way of a special civil action for certiorari.
The COMELEC has numerous cases before it where attention to minutiae is critical. Considering further the tribunal's
manpower and logistic limitations, it is sensible to treat the procedural requirements on deadlines realistically. Overly
strict adherence to deadlines might induce COMELEC to resolve election contests hurriedly by reason of lack of
material time. In our view this is not what the framers of the Code had intended since a very strict construction might
allow procedural flaws to subvert the will of the electorate and would amount to disenfranchisement of voters in
numerous cases. It will be noted that the "preferential disposition" applies to cases before the courts and not those
before the COMELEC, as a faithful reading of the section will readily show. The said provision reads as follows: “7
Section 258. Preferential disposition of cases in courts. The courts, in their respective cases, shall give preference to
election contests over all other cases, except those of habeas corpus, and shall without delay, hear and, within thirty
days from the date of their submission for decision, but in every case within six months after filing, decide the same

170. ATIENZA vs. COMELEC ( G.R. No. 108533, Dec. 20 1994 )

“Election Contests, F. Award of Damages”

Facts: Private respondent Antonio G. Sia was elected mayor of the Municipality of Madrilejos, Cebu
in the 1998 local elections. Following Sia’s proclamation, petitioner filed an election protest with the
Regional Trial Court questioning the results of the elections in a number of precincts in the
municipality. Consequently, in the revision ordered by the lower court, petitioner obtained a plurality
of 12 votes over the private respondent. The Regional Trial Court rendered its decision declaring
petitioner the winner of the municipal elections and ordering the private respondent to reimburse
petitioner the amount of P300,856.19 representing petitioner’s expenses in the election protest.
Private respondent appealed.

Meanwhile, the Regional trial Court granted petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal, which
was opposed by respondent. The Comelec issued a preliminary injunction stopping the enforcement
of the order of execution. The Comelec, en banc, on April 7, 1992 issued an Order setting aside the
preliminary injunction and thereby allowing petitioner to assume as mayor of the Municipality of
Madrilejos pending resolution of his appeal. However, following the synchronized elections of May
11, 1992, the Presiding Commissioner of the Comelec’s Second Division issued an Order dated July
18, 1992 dismissing petitioner’s appeal for being moot and academic.

Issue: Whether or not the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the lower court’s
judgment.

Held: The dismissal of an appeal in an election protest case for having become moot and academic
due to the election of new municipal officials referred only to that part of the appealed judgment which
was affected by the election and not to that portion relating to the award of damages. However, it
would appear virtually impossible for a party in an election protest case to recover actual or
compensatory damages in the absence of a law expressly providing for situations allowing for the
recovery of the same. This, petitioner has been unable to do. The intent of the legislature to do away
with provisions indemnifying the victorious party for expenses incurred in an election contest in the
absence of a wrongful act or omission clearly attributable to the losing party cannot be gainsaid – in
fine, Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code merely provides for the granting of actual and
compensatory damages “in accordance with law.” The intent, moreover, to do away with such
provisions merely recognizes the maxim, settled in law that a wrong without damage or damage
without wrong neither constitutes a cause of action nor creates a civil obligation.
A decision of the RTC over an election protest that was appealed to the COMELEC, which was
dismissed by the latter for being moot and academic, does not have effect of validating the
RTC’s decision, especially on the matter of the payment of expenses for the election protest to
the aggrieved party. Following the synchronized elections, the term of the disputed office has
expired; there was virtually nothing to enforce. Most election protest cases where the
monetary claim does not hinge on either a contract or quasi-contract or a tortuous act or
omission, the claimant must be able to point out to a specific provision of law authorizing a
money claim for election protest expenses against the losing party.

171. Malaluan vs Comelec

Petitioner Luis Malaluan and private respondent Joseph Evangelista were both mayoralty candidates in the
Municipality of Kidapawan. Evangelista was proclaimed. Petitioner filed an election protest with the RTC
contesting 64 precincts of the said municipality. The trial court declared petitioner as the duly elected
municipal mayor. The court found private respondent liable not only for Malaluan's protest expenses but also
for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Issue: W/N respondent can be held liable for Malaluan's protest expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees.
Ruling: No.

Section 259 of the Omnibus Election Code only provides for the granting in election cases of actual and
compensatory damages in accordance with law. The victorious party in an election case cannot be
indemnified for expenses which he has incurred in an electoral contest in the absence of a wrongful act or
omission or breach of obligation clearly attributable to the losing party. Evidently, if any damage had been
suffered by private respondent due to the execution of judgment pending appeal, that damage may be said to
be equivalent to damnum absque injuria, which is, damage without injury, or damage or injury inflicted
without injustice, or loss or damage without violation of a legal right, or a wrong done to a man for which the
law provides no remedy.
172. MEDENILLA vs KAYANAN

FACTS: Petitioner filed two petitions for the exclusion of some 137 persons from the permanent list of
voters, on the ground that said persons lack the required residence in the municipality, have not attained
the legal age to vote and cannot read and write, the same grounds he invoked when he challenged the
right of the said persons to register before the registration board, which rejected the challenge. Said
petitions also allege that notice thereof was served on the election registration board and on the voters
concerned setting the petition, accompanied by a sworn proof of notice of hearing to the effect that
petitioner personally sent by registered mail copies of said petitions and notice of hearing to the
respondents and that beginning October 22, 1967, he shall cause the posting of at least three copies of the
petition in three conspicuous places in the municipality.

Respondent Judge dismissed the two petitions for exclusion of voters and condemning the petitioner
herein to reimburse private respondents the sum of P4,000.00 as attorney's fees as well as to pay the
costs, and for an order directing the respondent Judge to receive evidence with respect to the petitions for
exclusion of voters, with costs.

ISSUE: W/N attorney's fees are recoverable as costs

RULING: NO. In election cases, attorney's fees are not recoverable as costs unless expressly provided by
the law or imposed by the Judge as costs.

173. Alvarez vs. Comelec G.R. No. 142527

Facts: On May 12, 1997, petitioner Arsenio Alvarez, with 590 votes, was proclaimed Punong Barangay of Doña
Aurora, Quezon City, his opponent, private respondent Abad-Sarmiento, obtained 585 votes. Private
respondent filed an election protest in the Metropolitan Trial Court claiming irregularities in the reading and
appreciation of ballots by the Board of Election Inspectors. After a recount of the ballots in the contested
precincts, the Trial Court ruled that the private respondent won the election, garnering 596 votes while
petitioner got 550 votes. On appeal, the COMELEC’s Second Division ruled that private respondent won over
petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Meanwhile, private respondent filed a Motion for
Execution pending appeal which petitioner opposed. The COMELEC En Banc denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and affirmed the decision of the Second Division. It granted the Motion for Execution pending
appeal. Petitioner brought before the Supreme Court this petition for Certiorari assailing the Resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioner and affirming the Resolution of
its Second Division alleging that the COMELEC En Banc granted the respondents Motion for Execution pending
appeal when the appeal was no longer pending, thus the motion had become obsolete and unenforceable.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it prematurely acted on the
Motion for Execution pending appeal?

Ruling: NO. We find no such abuse in the instant case. From the pleadings and the records, we observed that
the lower court and the COMELEC meticulously pored over the ballots reviewed. Because of its fact-finding
facilities and its knowledge derived from actual experience, the COMELEC is in a peculiarly advantageous
position to evaluate, appreciate and decide on factual questions before it. Here, we find no basis for the
allegation that abuse of discretion or arbitrariness marred the factual findings of the COMELEC. As previously
held, factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly supported by evidence, are
conclusive on this Court, more so in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud, or error of
law in the questioned resolutions. Unless any of these causes are clearly substantiated, the Court will not
interfere with the COMELECs findings of fact. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, and the En Banc
Resolution of the Commission on Election is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

BOOK - Costs were imposed against petitioner who filed a petition for ceritorari in the Supreme Court assailing
a Comelec Resolution affirming a decisiion of the Municipal trial Court declaring private respondent the duly
elected Punong Banrangay and directing petitioner to vacate and turn over the position to private respondent,
where, the SC found no abuse of discretion by the Comelec.

174. LINDO v COMELEC

FACTS: Lindo was declared as duly elected mayor of Tenate, Cavite. Incumbent mayor Velasco filed an election
protest contesting results from 19 precincts. Revision showed substantial variance between the number of
votes stated in the election returns and as per physical count of the ballots in 5 precincts. Thus, private
respondent was later declared duly elected mayor.
It is the contention of petitioner that the act of merely furnishing the parties with a copy of the decision, as
was done in the trial court, violated COMELEC rules and did not constitute a valid promulgation. Since there
was no valid promulgation, the five (5) day period within which the decision should be appealed to the
COMELEC did not commence to run.
ISSUE: W/N Lindo’s contention is tenable.
RULING: NO. The additional requirement for election contests before courts of general jurisdiction imposed
by Comelec Rule 35, Sec 20, of notice in advance of promulgation is not part of the process of promulgation.
Failure to serve notice in advance of the promulgation is a procedural lapse of the trial court which did not
vitiate the validity of the decision of the court nor of the promulgation of the decision.