Tuburan v. Ballener
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the November 14, 1967 elections for Mayor of the newly created Municipality of President Roxas, Cotabato, petitioner Jose Tuburan and respondent Frank Ballener were among the seven candidates. A provincial board, acting as a municipal board of canvassers, proclaimed Ballener as the duly elected mayor based on a canvass conducted on December 13, 1967. Tuburan objected to this proclamation, alleging that the election return from precinct No. 18 was tampered with. Specifically, he claimed that sixty-four votes intended for him were altered to appear as votes for another candidate, Jose Riveral, while Riveral's votes were altered to appear as Tuburan's. This alleged falsification involved a number of votes sufficient to change the election outcome. Procedural History: Following the initial proclamation of Ballener, Tuburan sent a telegram to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on December 16, 1967, detailing the alleged tampering and stating that a formal petition would follow. A petition was prepared on December 21, 1967, seeking the annulment of the canvass and proclamation, and requesting a new canvass based on an authentic copy of the election return from precinct No. 18. Due to delays in filing, Tuburan also filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato on December 26, 1967, as a precautionary measure. The COMELEC, after hearing on December 28, 1967, and reviewing evidence including sworn statements from election inspectors and Jose Riveral, resolved to set aside Ballener's proclamation and ordered a recanvass of precinct No. 18. The recanvass on December 31, 1967, credited Tuburan with sixty-four votes, leading to his proclamation and assumption of office. Subsequently, on January 31, 1968, Ballener filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC, arguing the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction. The COMELEC granted this motion on February 23, 1968, annulling Tuburan's proclamation and giving Tuburan 10 days to seek relief from the Supreme Court. Tuburan then filed the instant petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Jose Tuburan seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside the COMELEC's resolution of February 23, 1968, which annulled his proclamation. The petition raises two main issues: (1) whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction to entertain Tuburan's initial petition to annul Ballener's proclamation when an election protest was already pending in the Court of First Instance, and (2) whether Ballener's motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period. Tuburan argues that his filing of the election protest was a precautionary measure due to uncertainties regarding the filing of his petition with the COMELEC, and that the COMELEC's initial resolution was based on strong evidence of falsification. He also contends that Ballener's motion for reconsideration was filed late, as it was submitted 34 days after the COMELEC's December 28, 1967 resolution, well beyond the ten-day period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections had jurisdiction to entertain Tuburan's petition to annul Ballener's proclamation, considering that at the time said petition was filed, there was already a pending election protest instituted by petitioner. Whether Ballener's motion for reconsideration of January 31, 1968, was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The resolution of the respondent Commission on Elections dated February 23, 1968, annulling the proclamation of petitioner on December 31, 1967, is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Jurisdiction of COMELEC): The Court held that while the general rule is that once a Court of First Instance acquires jurisdiction through an election protest, all related questions must be decided in that case, the present case falls under an exception. The Court found reason to believe Tuburan's allegation that he filed the election protest in the CFI merely as a precautionary measure because the filing period was about to expire, and he had no confirmation whether his petition to the COMELEC had been filed. The uncertainties of travel and intervening holidays could have caused apprehension. Therefore, the step taken should not be considered as foreclosing the remedy sought from the COMELEC. Furthermore, the evidence of falsification was strong and convincing, and there was no dispute regarding its veracity. Allowing Ballener's proclamation to stand would entrench him based on a falsified return, which runs counter to justice and fair play. The Court emphasized that the overriding fact of strong evidence of falsification justified the COMELEC's intervention. On the second issue (Reglementary Period for Motion for Reconsideration): The Court ruled that Ballener's motion for reconsideration, filed on January 31, 1968, was filed 34 days after the COMELEC's resolution of December 28, 1967, which was beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Consequently, the resolution had become final. Ballener's contention that the telegraphic notice of the resolution was defective was rejected. The Court noted that Ballener was represented by counsel during the recanvass on December 31, 1967, and raised no objection to the notice. Moreover, Ballener himself filed an election protest on January 13, 1968, which is an act recognizing Tuburan's proclamation and implies that he considered the proclamation valid and the COMELEC's resolution final. The Court observed that the election protest was not filed ad cautelam and that the rule that an election contest in court forecloses proceedings in the COMELEC should apply to Ballener in this instance, not the other way around.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections may entertain a petition to annul a proclamation even if an election protest has been filed, provided that the filing of the protest was a precautionary measure due to uncertainty regarding the filing of the petition before the Commission, and the evidence of falsification is strong and undisputed. A motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period, especially when the party has already filed an election protest, is considered filed out of time.