Dumayas vs. Comelec,
G.R. No. 141952-53, April 20, 2001
Facts:
Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent
Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates for the position of mayor in Carles, Iloilo
last 11 May 1998 synchronized elections.1âw During the canvassing on 13 May 1998, election returns for
precinct nos. 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan was 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 (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 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.
Petitioner
filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998. The appeal was given
due course by the COMELEC Second Division.
Comelec
2nd division held that 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).
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.
Meanwhile,
on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an
action for quo warranto against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo, said petition included respondent Bernal as one of the petitioners
together with Vice-Mayor Betita.
COMELEC
en banc reversed and set aside order of the Second division and annulled the
proclamation of Rodolfo Dumayas Jr. 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.
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.
Issue
1:
Whether 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.
Held:
No; 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.
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.
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, 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. 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.
Issue 2
Whether the COMELEC err in ordering the
inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvassing of ballots.
Held:
No; 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 duties16 and who
categorically denied the allegations, the election returns were also observed
to be genuine, clean, signed and/or thumb marked by the proper officials and
watchers.
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. 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.
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.
Issue 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?
Held:
No; in Jamil vs. Commission on Elections, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment