View full case

RODOLFO DUMAYAS v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The petitioner, Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr., filed a special civil action seeking to nullify the resolution of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc that reversed the resolution of the Second Division which annulled petitioner's proclamation as Municipal Mayor of Carles, Iloilo. During the canvassing of the election returns, petitioner protested the inclusion of the returns for precincts 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A of Barangay Pantalan before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), alleging violations of election laws, acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts prohibited by law as grounds for exclusion. Petitioner submitted evidence consisting of joint affidavits, an affidavit of petitioner's supporter, a blotter report from the Carles PNP, and a certification from the desk officer of the PNP Carles. Respondent submitted joint affidavits of the members of the different Boards of Election Inspectors for the contested precincts attesting that the elections were peaceful, clean, orderly, and free from acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and violations of election laws. After the denial of petitioner's objection, the MBC proceeded with the canvass, and the results showed respondent had more votes in the contested precincts. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, and the appeal was given due course by the COMELEC Second Division, which found irregularities in the preparation of the contested election returns. Private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc, and the motion and records of the case were elevated to the COMELEC en banc. The MBC did not proclaim a winner for the position of Mayor since private respondent presented a copy of his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner was proclaimed the winner of the election after excluding the returns from the three contested precincts. Private respondent filed an urgent motion to declare the proclamation void ab initio, and the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's motion to expunge and annulled petitioner's proclamation. Respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed as the true winner for the position of Mayor.

ISSUES:

  1. Should respondent Bernal, who was named as petitioner in the quo warranto proceedings commenced before the regular court, be deemed to have abandoned the motions he had filed with respondent Commission?

  2. Did the COMELEC err in ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvassing of ballots?

  3. In view of the retirement of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani before the date of the promulgation of the assailed resolution on March 2, 2000, should said resolution be deemed null and void for being violative of Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution?

  4. Whether the petition filed by Vice-Mayor Betita is a proper quo warranto petition or election protest under the Omnibus Election Code.

  5. Whether the petition filed by Vice-Mayor Betita can be considered as an action for usurpation of public office.

  6. Whether the proclamation of the respondent is null and void.

  7. Whether there is sufficient justification for the exclusion of the contested returns from Precincts 61A, 62A and 63A/64A (clustered) on the ground of duress, intimidation, threat or coercion.

  8. Whether the evidentiary requirement for proving irregularities in election returns has been met.

RULING:

  1. Respondent Bernal did not effectively abandon his pending motions before the COMELEC en banc by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141.

  2. The COMELEC did not err in ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvassing of ballots.

  3. The retirement of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani before the promulgation of the resolution does not render it null and void. The resolution remains valid as it was still supported by the remaining commissioners who constituted a quorum.

  4. The petition filed by Vice-Mayor Betita is neither a quo warranto petition nor an election protest under the Omnibus Election Code. It does not raise the issue of disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate, nor does it contest the frauds or irregularities in the election. The petition is in the nature of an action for usurpation of public office.

  5. The petition filed by Vice-Mayor Betita can be considered as an action for usurpation of public office. The allegations in the petition assert his right to the position of Mayor based on the rules on succession of local government officials in the Local Government Code.

  6. The proclamation of the respondent is null and void. A null and void proclamation cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.

  7. The COMELEC en banc correctly reversed the Second Division's order of exclusion of the contested returns as the petitioner failed to justify the exclusion on the ground of duress, intimidation, threat or coercion. The self-serving affidavits submitted by the petitioner's watchers and supporters were countered by opposing affidavits from the members of the Boards of Election Inspectors. Additionally, the election returns were observed to be genuine, clean, and signed by the proper officials and watchers. The appeal brought by the petitioner should have been dismissed by the Second Division, as the proper remedy for raising issues requiring the examination of election returns is through a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A decision becomes binding only after its promulgation. If a judge or member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated office at the time of promulgation, his vote on the decision must be withdrawn or cancelled. However, the withdrawal of votes does not necessarily render the decision a nullity unless it materially affects the result. (Jamil vs. Commission on Elections)

  • The filing of an election protest or petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of the earlier filed petition. This deprives the COMELEC of jurisdiction to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation.

  • The jurisdiction of an election protest or quo warranto lies with the specific proceeding itself, and not in another proceeding, to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.

  • Exceptions to the general rule include cases where the board of canvassers was improperly constituted, quo warranto was not the proper remedy, what was filed was a petition to annul a proclamation, the filing of the petition was without prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy, or the proclamation was null and void.

  • A petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises the issue of disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate, while an election protest contests frauds or irregularities in the election.

  • The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint or petition, not the title or caption.

  • Findings of fact by the COMELEC or any other administrative agency exercising expertise in their field are binding on the Court.

  • In pre-proclamation controversies, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to go beyond the face of the regular and authentic election returns.

  • Allegations of irregularities in election returns must be supported by evidence appearing on the face of the returns or proof aliunde and cannot be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.

  • Election irregularities that involve the genuineness or authenticity of election returns are properly raised in an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.

  • A pre-proclamation controversy is summary in nature and excludes the examination of election returns that appear regular on their face.