EN BANC
[ G.R. Nos. 141952-53, April 20, 2001 ]RODOLFO DUMAYAS v. COMELEC +
RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARLES, PROVINCE OF ILOILO AND FELIPE BERNAL, JR., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
RODOLFO DUMAYAS v. COMELEC +
RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARLES, PROVINCE OF ILOILO AND FELIPE BERNAL, JR., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
In this special civil action, petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr., seeks to nullify the Resolution promulgated March 2, 2000 by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc, reversing that of the Second Division dated August 4, 1998, which annulled the
petitioner's proclamation as Municipal Mayor of Carles, Iloilo.
The antecedent facts of the case, as found by the COMELEC en banc, are as follows:
In the afternoon of May 14, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioner's objection to the inclusion of the contested returns and proceeded with the canvass. The results of the voting were as follows:
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998. The appeal was given due course by the COMELEC Second Division[3] which rendered a resolution dated August 4, 1998, disposing as follows:
On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
On August 12, 1998, an order certifying that the motion for reconsideration and records of the case were elevated to the COMELEC en banc was signed by Commissioner Julio F. Desamito and issued by the Clerk of the Commission.
Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division, Election Officer Rolando Dalen set the reconvening of the MBC on August 13, 1998, for the continuation of canvass proceedings and proclamation of winning candidates for Vice-Mayor and Municipal Councilors of Carles, Iloilo. No winner for the position of Mayor was proclaimed since private respondent was able to present a copy of his motion for reconsideration before the MBC. The MBC then reset the date for reconvening of the board on August 17, 1998, after confirming by phone with COMELEC-Manila that a motion for reconsideration was indeed filed by private respondent. Thereafter, the MBC ruled that proclamation of the winning candidate for Mayor would proceed on August 17, 1998 unless private respondent could present a certification from the COMELEC that the motion for reconsideration was elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
On August 17, 1998, despite presentation of the August 12, 1998 order, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the election after excluding from the canvass the election returns from the three contested precincts in accordance with the COMELEC Second Division Resolution. The MBC, with its Vice-Chairman dissenting, justified its act by reasoning that it did not receive an official copy of the order directing the elevation of the case to the banc.
The following day, private respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to declare void ab initio the proclamation of petitioner on the ground that the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division was not yet final and executory. For his part, petitioner opposed both the motion for reconsideration and motion to declare void ab initio his proclamation as Mayor of Carles, asserting that private respondent failed to show palpable errors to warrant reconsideration of said resolution and maintaining, at the same time, that his proclamation was legal since respondent failed to produce the certification required by the MBC.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo warranto[5] against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 66. Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141, said petition included respondent Bernal as one of the petitioners together with Vice-Mayor Betita.
On September 18, 1998, petitioner filed before the COMELEC en banc a motion to expunge respondent Bernal's motion for reconsideration and motion to declare petitioner's proclamation void ab initio, on the ground that respondent Bernal should be deemed to have abandoned said motions by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 which, according to petitioner, is a formal election protest via quo warranto brought before the regular courts.
In a resolution dated August 24, 1999 but promulgated on March 2, 2000, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's motion to expunge, thus:
On March 13, 2000, respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by the newly-constituted Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality of Carles, thereby unseating petitioner Dumayas.
Hence, this instant special civil action where he alleges that:
The following are the issues to be resolved: (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?
We shall first discuss the third issue. Petitioner claims that March 2, 2000 Resolution of the COMELEC is void because Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and Japal Guiani have already retired on the date of its promulgation, even if they had participated earlier in the deliberations of the case and signed the resolution dated August 24, 1999. Petitioner submits that this defect invalidated the entire decision of the Commission and that accordingly, a new vote should be taken to settle the matter.
In Jamil vs. Commission on Elections,[8] we held that a decision becomes binding only after its promulgation. If at the time it is promulgated, a judge or member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated office, his vote on the decision must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. Accordingly, the votes of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani should merely be considered as withdrawn for the reason that their retirement preceded the resolution's promulgation. The effect of the withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had not signed the resolution at all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners would be properly considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy.
However, unless the withdrawal of the votes would materially affect the result insofar as votes for or against a party is concerned, we find no reason for declaring the decision a nullity. In the present case, with the cancellation of the votes of retired Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani, the remaining votes among the four incumbent commissioners at the time of the resolution's promulgation would still be 3 to 1 in favor of respondent. Noteworthy, these remaining Commissioners still constituted a quorum. In our view, the defect cited by petitioner does not affect the substance or validity of respondent Commission's disposition of the controversy. The nullification of the challenged resolution, in our view, would merely prolong the proceedings unnecessarily.
Now, regarding the first issue raised by petitioner. Did respondent Bernal effectively abandon his pending motions before the COMELEC en banc by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141? Petitioner's contention that Bernal did appears to us untenable.
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[9]
Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) 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 (e) the proclamation was null and void.[10]
An examination of the petition filed primarily by Vice-Mayor Betita with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that it is neither a quo warranto petition under the Omnibus Election Code nor an election protest. In Samad vs. COMELEC[11], we explained that a petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. 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.
The allegations contained in Betita's petition before the regular court do not present any proper issue for either an election protest or a quo warranto case under the Omnibus Election Code. Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 appears to be in the nature of an action for usurpation of public office brought by Betita to assert his right to the position of Mayor pursuant to the rules on succession of local government officials contained in the Local Government Code.[12] Although said petition is also denominated as a quo warranto petition under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, it is different in nature from the quo warranto provided for in the Omnibus Election Code where the only issue proper for determination is either disloyalty or ineligibility of respondent therein. Neither can it be considered as an election protest since what was put forth as an issue in said petition was petitioner's alleged unlawful assumption of the office of Mayor by virtue of his alleged illegal proclamation as the winning candidate in the election.
A closer look at the specific allegations in the petition disclose that Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 is actually an action for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation on the ground of illegality and prematurity. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that the nature of the action is determined by the averments in the complaint or petition[13] and not the title or caption thereof. The material stipulations of the petition substantially state:
Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its discretion, when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal's motion for reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner's proclamation as void ab initio. Note that under the allegations cited above, the determination of Betita's right would ultimately hinge on the validity of petitioner's proclamation in the first place. To repeat, the "quo warranto" petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition to annul petitioner's proclamation over which COMELEC exercises original exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, it could not be deemed as a proper remedy in favor of respondent Bernal, Jr. even if his name was included in the title of said petition.
We now consider whether the MBC's proclamation of petitioner Dumayas as the winning candidate in the 1998 mayoralty election is null and void. For where a proclamation is null and void, it is no proclamation at all such that the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.[15]
Although petitioner's proclamation was undertaken pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division, it appears plain to us that the latter grievously erred in ordering the exclusion of the contested returns from Precincts 61A, 62A and 63A/64A (clustered). On this score, the Comelec en banc correctly reversed the Second Division by holding that petitioner Dumayas failed to justify the exclusion of said returns on the ground of duress, intimidation, threat or coercion. We note that the only evidence submitted by petitioner to prove said irregularities were self-serving affidavits executed by his watchers and supporters. Aside from the fact that these allegations were countered by opposing affidavits made by the members of the Boards of Election Inspectors who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties[16] and who categorically denied the allegations, the election returns were also observed to be genuine, clean, signed and/or thumbmarked by the proper officials and watchers.[17]
Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of fact by the COMELEC or any other administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on this Court.[18] In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns which are on their face regular and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper remedy is a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.[19]
In the present case, petitioner barely alleged that the preparation of said returns was attended by threats, duress, intimidation or coercion without offering any proof, other than the affidavits mentioned above, that these had affected the regularity or genuineness of the contested returns. Absent any evidence appearing on the face of the returns that they are indeed spurious, manufactured or tampered with, the election irregularities cited by petitioner would require the reception of evidence aliunde which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy such as the one initiated by petitioner. Returns can not be excluded on mere allegation that the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face, appear regular and without any physical signs of tampering, alteration or other similar vice. If there had been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal through falsification of the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy.[20]
In sum, we hold that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second Division. The appeal brought by petitioner from the order of inclusion issued by the MBC should have been dismissed by that Division right away, since the grounds for exclusion relied upon by petitioner are not proper in a pre-proclamation case, which is summary in nature.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, public respondent having committed no grave abuse of discretion. Its challenged resolution dated August 24, 1999 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 83-87.
[2] Id. at 127.
[3] Composed of Commissioners Japal Guiani (Ponente), Julio Desamito (Dissenting) and then COMELEC Chairman (now SC Associate Justice) Bernardo Pardo (Concurring and Sitting with the Division under Rule 3, Sec. 2 [2nd par.] Comelec Rules of Procedure.
[4] Supra, note 1 at 56.
[5] Id. at 67-72.
[6] Id. at 91.
[7] Id. at 17.
[8] 283 SCRA 349, 371 (1997).
[9] Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631, 638 (1993) citing: Sevilleja vs. COMELEC, 107 SCRA 141 (1981); Mogueis, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 576 (1981); Filart vs. COMELEC, 53 SCRA 457 (1973); Reyes vs. Reyes, 22 SCRA 485 (1968); Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus Election Code, 1992 Ed., p. 337; Acain & Malimit vs. Board of Canvassers of Carmen, Agusan, et.al., 108 Phil. 165 (1960); Salvacion vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 513 (1989); and Padilla vs. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424 (1985).
[10] Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705, 713-714 (1997).
[11] Supra, note 9 citing: Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code and Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 (1912).
[12] Supra, note 1 at 90.
[13] Remedial Law Compendium, 1997 Ed., Justice F.D. Regalado, pp. 126 & 139-140.
[14] Supra, note 1 at 69-70.
[15] Torres vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583, 588-589 (1997) citing: Aguam vs. COMELEC, 23 SCRA 883 (1968).
[16] Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733, 756 (1997).
[17] Supra, note 12.
[18] Cordero vs. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 118, 126 (1999) citing: Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997); Phil. Savings Bank vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409 (1996) and Navarro vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 596 (1993).
[19] Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482, 492 (1999) citing: Matalam vs. COMELEC, supra.; Loong vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1 (1996); Dimaporo vs. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 769 (1990); Dipatuan vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 86 (1990).
[20] Salih vs. COMELEC , 279 SCRA 19, 32 (1997).
The antecedent facts of the case, as found by the COMELEC en banc, are as follows:
Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates for the position of mayor in Carles, Iloilo last 11 May 1998 synchronized elections.
During the canvassing on 13 May 1998, election returns for precincts nos. 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan were protested for inclusion in the canvass before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC for brevity) by petitioner-appellant Dumayas Jr. The grounds relied upon for their exclusion are all the same- that is, "violation of Secs. 234, 235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws; acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts prohibited by law." Appellant Dumayas, Jr. submitted his evidence to the Board of Canvassers on 14 May 1998 which consist of (a) the joint affidavits executed by LAMMP watchers for precinct 61A: Teresita Oblido, Reyland de la Rosa, and Armando Flores [signed by Oblido and Flores only]; (b) affidavit of petitioner's supporter Virgilisa Capao; (c) joint affidavit of precinct 63A - watcher Nona Dichosa and precinct 62A - watcher Daniel Carmona; (d) blotter report dated 12 May 1998 of Carles PNP, Iloilo; and (d) corroborating affidavit of LAMMP supporter Honorato Gallardo.
All the affidavits submitted by petitioner contain similar attestations such as: certain local baranggay (sic) officials were inside the polling place during the casting and counting of votes, or acted as watcher of respondent; SPO3 Gilbert Sorongon who was in shorts and t-shirt armed with an armalite roamed around and inside the polling places; a CVO in uniform was roaming precinct 63A; the presence of the public officials posed threat and intimidation driving most of the watchers of other political parties away; the BEIs were so intimidated and coerced that no election return was prepared simultaneous with the tallying; the election returns were prepared under duress; the voters were coerced to vote for certain favored candidates especially herein respondent; petitioner's watchers were made to sign or affix their thumbmarks on the already prepared election returns; in precinct 63A/64A, the voting ended at almost 9:00 P.M. without the BEI members writing the names of such voters.
Petitioner also submitted a certification issued by PO3 Tito Billones, Desk Officer of PNP Carles representing the blotter report (extracted from the police log book) which states that on 12 May 1998, Virgilisa Capao reported to the Police Station of Carles, Iloilo that PO3 Sorongon and Brgy. Capt. Mahilum entered Precinct 63A with (sic) the company of other CVO and Brgy. Kagawad during election. And that these people gravely intimidated the voters by telling them the names of the candidates they should vote for. It also states that PO3 Sorongon was not in his prescribed uniform when seen with hand grenades hanging on his neck and carrying an armalite roaming inside and outside the polling place.
On the other hand, respondent Bernal, Jr. in vehemently denying the allegations of petitioner, submitted joint affidavits of the members of the different Boards of Election Inspectors for precinct nos. 61A, 62A and 63A/64A.
x x x
All the supplemental affidavits of the different BEIs categorically declared that the elections in their respective precincts "starting from the start of the voting to its closing, to the counting of votes and to the preparation and submission of election returns" were peaceful, clean, orderly and no acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion and similar acts prohibited by law was (sic) exerted on anybody including the voters and members of the BEIs. They all attested that the incidents alleged by petitioner's watchers did not happen. The alleged terrorism, coercion, or violation of election laws like the opening of ballots and reading the votes allegedly done by certain public officials like SPO3 Sorongon, Nody Mahilum, Anonia Barrios, Telesforo Gallardo and others are not true, the truth being that these people were only inside the polling place to exercise their right of suffrage. They also vehemently denied that the election returns were not simultaneously prepared with the tallying and counting of votes. They stressed that as public school teachers, they cannot risk their future and career and will not allow or tolerate anybody to make a mockery of the electoral process to (sic) which they were duly sworn to uphold.
Nody Mahilum and PO3 Gilbert Sorongon also executed a joint affidavit denying the accusations of Dumayas, Jr. and his watchers stating therein that they only entered their respective precinct-polling place in order to exercise their right of suffrage and that the election in the three precincts of Barangay Pantalan was orderly, peaceful, and honest which (sic) truly reflects the will of the electorate.
x x x[1]
In the afternoon of May 14, 1998, the Municipal Board of Canvassers denied petitioner's objection to the inclusion of the contested returns and proceeded with the canvass. The results of the voting were as follows:
| DUMAYAS | BERNAL | |
|
CONTESTED PRECINCTS
|
||
|
Prec. 61A
|
44
|
117
|
|
Prec. 62A
|
43
|
114
|
|
Prec. 63A/64A (clustered) 54 159
|
||
|
Uncontested prec[incts] total
|
7, 636
|
7,514
|
|
Over all total
|
7,777
|
7, 904[2]
|
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998. The appeal was given due course by the COMELEC Second Division[3] which rendered a resolution dated August 4, 1998, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the preparation of the contested election returns to be tainted with irregularities, this Commission (SECOND DIVISION) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to EXCLUDE Election Return No. 3000976 from Precinct No. 61-A; Election Return No. 3000977 from Precinct No. 62-A; and Election return No. 3000978 from Precinct Nos. 63-A/64-A (clustered).
Respondent Mun(i)cipal Board of Canvassers is hereby directed to RECONVENE and FINISH the canvass of the remaining or uncontested returns and thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning mayoralty candidate of Carles, Iloilo.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
On August 12, 1998, an order certifying that the motion for reconsideration and records of the case were elevated to the COMELEC en banc was signed by Commissioner Julio F. Desamito and issued by the Clerk of the Commission.
Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division, Election Officer Rolando Dalen set the reconvening of the MBC on August 13, 1998, for the continuation of canvass proceedings and proclamation of winning candidates for Vice-Mayor and Municipal Councilors of Carles, Iloilo. No winner for the position of Mayor was proclaimed since private respondent was able to present a copy of his motion for reconsideration before the MBC. The MBC then reset the date for reconvening of the board on August 17, 1998, after confirming by phone with COMELEC-Manila that a motion for reconsideration was indeed filed by private respondent. Thereafter, the MBC ruled that proclamation of the winning candidate for Mayor would proceed on August 17, 1998 unless private respondent could present a certification from the COMELEC that the motion for reconsideration was elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
On August 17, 1998, despite presentation of the August 12, 1998 order, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the election after excluding from the canvass the election returns from the three contested precincts in accordance with the COMELEC Second Division Resolution. The MBC, with its Vice-Chairman dissenting, justified its act by reasoning that it did not receive an official copy of the order directing the elevation of the case to the banc.
The following day, private respondent immediately filed an urgent motion to declare void ab initio the proclamation of petitioner on the ground that the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division was not yet final and executory. For his part, petitioner opposed both the motion for reconsideration and motion to declare void ab initio his proclamation as Mayor of Carles, asserting that private respondent failed to show palpable errors to warrant reconsideration of said resolution and maintaining, at the same time, that his proclamation was legal since respondent failed to produce the certification required by the MBC.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo warranto[5] against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 66. Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141, said petition included respondent Bernal as one of the petitioners together with Vice-Mayor Betita.
On September 18, 1998, petitioner filed before the COMELEC en banc a motion to expunge respondent Bernal's motion for reconsideration and motion to declare petitioner's proclamation void ab initio, on the ground that respondent Bernal should be deemed to have abandoned said motions by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 which, according to petitioner, is a formal election protest via quo warranto brought before the regular courts.
In a resolution dated August 24, 1999 but promulgated on March 2, 2000, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner's motion to expunge, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the Second Division is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the proclamation of Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. is hereby ANNULLED. A new Municipal Board of Canvassers of Carles, Iloilo is hereby constituted with the following members: Atty. Nelia Aureus, Chairman; Atty. Rosel Abad, Vice-Chairman; and Atty. Manuel Lucero, Third Member -- all of Election Contests and Adjudication Department of the Commission. They are directed to convene at Session Hall of the COMELEC -- Main Office, Manila on the tenth (10th) day from the date of promulgation of this Resolution with notice to the parties. The new board of canvassers shall complete the canvassing of all the returns and proceed with the proclamation of the true winner for the position of mayor of Carles, Iloilo. Petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. is hereby directed to cease and desist from performing the functions of the office of mayor of Carles, Iloilo. Election Officer Rolando Dalen is hereby directed to bring to the Commission's Main Office the election returns of Carles, Iloilo which need to be canvassed and the other election documents necessary for the canvassing and proclamation and turn them over to the new board of canvassers.
The Law Department is directed to investigate the election offense allegedly committed by PO3 Gilbert Sorongon on election day.
Let the Deputy Executive Director for Operations of the Commission implement this Resolution with dispatch giving a copy thereof to the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On March 13, 2000, respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by the newly-constituted Municipal Board of Canvassers as the duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality of Carles, thereby unseating petitioner Dumayas.
Hence, this instant special civil action where he alleges that:
- RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT, PRIVATE RESPONDENT FELIPE BERNAL JR. IS DEEMED TO HAVE ABANDONED HIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION EN BANC CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT, TOGETHER WITH ARNOLD BETITA FILED AN ELECTION CASE THRU A QUO WARRANTO, BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO BRANCH 66, DOCKETED AS CASE NO. 98-141.
- RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INCLUSION FOR CANVASS THE THREE ELECTION RETURNS FOR PRECINCT NOS. 61-A, 62-A, and 63-A/64-A (CLUSTERED) BY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARLES, ILOILO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE IS CLEAR AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ELECTION RETURNS FOR THESE THREE PRECINCT(S) WERE PREPARED UNDER DURESS AND NOT PREPARED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COUNTING OF VOTES.
- THE RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON MARCH 2, 2000 IS ILLEGAL AS IT WAS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE IX (A) SECTION 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERING THAT ONLY FOUR COMMISSIONERS VOTED TO REVERSE THE RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 4, 1998 OF THE SECOND DIVISION COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND THAT, TWO COMMISSIONER(S) HAVE ALREADY RETIRED, AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION.[7]
The following are the issues to be resolved: (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?
We shall first discuss the third issue. Petitioner claims that March 2, 2000 Resolution of the COMELEC is void because Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and Japal Guiani have already retired on the date of its promulgation, even if they had participated earlier in the deliberations of the case and signed the resolution dated August 24, 1999. Petitioner submits that this defect invalidated the entire decision of the Commission and that accordingly, a new vote should be taken to settle the matter.
In Jamil vs. Commission on Elections,[8] we held that a decision becomes binding only after its promulgation. If at the time it is promulgated, a judge or member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated office, his vote on the decision must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. Accordingly, the votes of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani should merely be considered as withdrawn for the reason that their retirement preceded the resolution's promulgation. The effect of the withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had not signed the resolution at all and only the votes of the remaining commissioners would be properly considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy.
However, unless the withdrawal of the votes would materially affect the result insofar as votes for or against a party is concerned, we find no reason for declaring the decision a nullity. In the present case, with the cancellation of the votes of retired Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani, the remaining votes among the four incumbent commissioners at the time of the resolution's promulgation would still be 3 to 1 in favor of respondent. Noteworthy, these remaining Commissioners still constituted a quorum. In our view, the defect cited by petitioner does not affect the substance or validity of respondent Commission's disposition of the controversy. The nullification of the challenged resolution, in our view, would merely prolong the proceedings unnecessarily.
Now, regarding the first issue raised by petitioner. Did respondent Bernal effectively abandon his pending motions before the COMELEC en banc by the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141? Petitioner's contention that Bernal did appears to us untenable.
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[9]
Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) 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 (e) the proclamation was null and void.[10]
An examination of the petition filed primarily by Vice-Mayor Betita with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that it is neither a quo warranto petition under the Omnibus Election Code nor an election protest. In Samad vs. COMELEC[11], we explained that a petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. 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.
The allegations contained in Betita's petition before the regular court do not present any proper issue for either an election protest or a quo warranto case under the Omnibus Election Code. Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 appears to be in the nature of an action for usurpation of public office brought by Betita to assert his right to the position of Mayor pursuant to the rules on succession of local government officials contained in the Local Government Code.[12] Although said petition is also denominated as a quo warranto petition under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, it is different in nature from the quo warranto provided for in the Omnibus Election Code where the only issue proper for determination is either disloyalty or ineligibility of respondent therein. Neither can it be considered as an election protest since what was put forth as an issue in said petition was petitioner's alleged unlawful assumption of the office of Mayor by virtue of his alleged illegal proclamation as the winning candidate in the election.
A closer look at the specific allegations in the petition disclose that Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 is actually an action for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation on the ground of illegality and prematurity. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that the nature of the action is determined by the averments in the complaint or petition[13] and not the title or caption thereof. The material stipulations of the petition substantially state:
- That when the Board of Canvassers convened in the afternoon and despite the submission of the copy of the order certifying the Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc and in violation of the Comelec Rules and Procedure and due to the threat received by the Board,
Mr. Dalen, the Chairman of the Board and Mr. Serafin Provido, Jr. signed the Certificate of Proclamation proclaiming respondent as winner of the elections for Mayor. Mr. Deony Cabaobao did not signed (sic) the said Certificate of Proclamation as he dissented to (sic) the
decision to proclaim respondent;
- The proclamation, therefore, of respondent is illegal and null and void from the very beginning for it was done in violation of law and under duress. The affidavit of Mr. Serafin Provido, Jr. a member of the Board of Canvassers showing duress is hereto attached as
Annex "C";
- On account of the illegal proclamation of the respondent said proclamation does not vest any right or authority for him to sit as Mayor of the town of Carles thus when he sits as such Mayor he usurps, intrudes into, and unlawfully holds and exercise(s) a public office
without authority;
- The authority to act as mayor for and in the absence of the duly proclaimed mayor is vested on petitioner Betita pursuant to law;
- That the continued unlawful exercise by the respondent of the position of mayor of the town of Carles will cause great and irreparable damage to the petitioners, particularly petitioner Betita, who pursuant to law is entitled to act as Mayor of the town of Carles and
the people of Carles who pays his salaries unless he be restrained or enjoined from sitiing (sic) as such Mayor;
x x x [14]
Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its discretion, when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal's motion for reconsideration and urgent motion to declare petitioner's proclamation as void ab initio. Note that under the allegations cited above, the determination of Betita's right would ultimately hinge on the validity of petitioner's proclamation in the first place. To repeat, the "quo warranto" petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition to annul petitioner's proclamation over which COMELEC exercises original exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, it could not be deemed as a proper remedy in favor of respondent Bernal, Jr. even if his name was included in the title of said petition.
We now consider whether the MBC's proclamation of petitioner Dumayas as the winning candidate in the 1998 mayoralty election is null and void. For where a proclamation is null and void, it is no proclamation at all such that the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.[15]
Although petitioner's proclamation was undertaken pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC's Second Division, it appears plain to us that the latter grievously erred in ordering the exclusion of the contested returns from Precincts 61A, 62A and 63A/64A (clustered). On this score, the Comelec en banc correctly reversed the Second Division by holding that petitioner Dumayas failed to justify the exclusion of said returns on the ground of duress, intimidation, threat or coercion. We note that the only evidence submitted by petitioner to prove said irregularities were self-serving affidavits executed by his watchers and supporters. Aside from the fact that these allegations were countered by opposing affidavits made by the members of the Boards of Election Inspectors who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties[16] and who categorically denied the allegations, the election returns were also observed to be genuine, clean, signed and/or thumbmarked by the proper officials and watchers.[17]
Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of fact by the COMELEC or any other administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on this Court.[18] In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond or behind the election returns which are on their face regular and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the veil of election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper remedy is a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.[19]
In the present case, petitioner barely alleged that the preparation of said returns was attended by threats, duress, intimidation or coercion without offering any proof, other than the affidavits mentioned above, that these had affected the regularity or genuineness of the contested returns. Absent any evidence appearing on the face of the returns that they are indeed spurious, manufactured or tampered with, the election irregularities cited by petitioner would require the reception of evidence aliunde which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy such as the one initiated by petitioner. Returns can not be excluded on mere allegation that the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face, appear regular and without any physical signs of tampering, alteration or other similar vice. If there had been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal through falsification of the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy.[20]
In sum, we hold that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second Division. The appeal brought by petitioner from the order of inclusion issued by the MBC should have been dismissed by that Division right away, since the grounds for exclusion relied upon by petitioner are not proper in a pre-proclamation case, which is summary in nature.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, public respondent having committed no grave abuse of discretion. Its challenged resolution dated August 24, 1999 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 83-87.
[2] Id. at 127.
[3] Composed of Commissioners Japal Guiani (Ponente), Julio Desamito (Dissenting) and then COMELEC Chairman (now SC Associate Justice) Bernardo Pardo (Concurring and Sitting with the Division under Rule 3, Sec. 2 [2nd par.] Comelec Rules of Procedure.
[4] Supra, note 1 at 56.
[5] Id. at 67-72.
[6] Id. at 91.
[7] Id. at 17.
[8] 283 SCRA 349, 371 (1997).
[9] Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631, 638 (1993) citing: Sevilleja vs. COMELEC, 107 SCRA 141 (1981); Mogueis, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 576 (1981); Filart vs. COMELEC, 53 SCRA 457 (1973); Reyes vs. Reyes, 22 SCRA 485 (1968); Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus Election Code, 1992 Ed., p. 337; Acain & Malimit vs. Board of Canvassers of Carmen, Agusan, et.al., 108 Phil. 165 (1960); Salvacion vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 513 (1989); and Padilla vs. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424 (1985).
[10] Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705, 713-714 (1997).
[11] Supra, note 9 citing: Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code and Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238 (1912).
[12] Supra, note 1 at 90.
[13] Remedial Law Compendium, 1997 Ed., Justice F.D. Regalado, pp. 126 & 139-140.
[14] Supra, note 1 at 69-70.
[15] Torres vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583, 588-589 (1997) citing: Aguam vs. COMELEC, 23 SCRA 883 (1968).
[16] Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733, 756 (1997).
[17] Supra, note 12.
[18] Cordero vs. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 118, 126 (1999) citing: Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481 (1997); Phil. Savings Bank vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409 (1996) and Navarro vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 596 (1993).
[19] Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482, 492 (1999) citing: Matalam vs. COMELEC, supra.; Loong vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1 (1996); Dimaporo vs. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 769 (1990); Dipatuan vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 86 (1990).
[20] Salih vs. COMELEC , 279 SCRA 19, 32 (1997).