Ondona v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Following the November 14, 1967 elections in Cagwait, Surigao del Sur, Adelfo Luengas (Liberal Party) was proclaimed mayor with 1372 votes, while Clenio L. Ondona (Nacionalista Party) garnered 1351 votes. Procedural History: On November 16, 1967, Ondona filed a petition for annulment of the canvass and proclamation with the Election Registrar. Subsequently, on November 29, 1967, Ondona filed an election protest before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Surigao del Sur, alleging irregularities in vote casting and counting in Precinct 7. Luengas filed an Answer with Counter-Protest. Ondona's petition for annulment was submitted to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on December 29, 1967, citing lack of quorum, absence of candidates, and lack of notification. Comelec dismissed this petition on January 16, 1968, finding no chance for Ondona to win even with a recanvass. Ondona moved for reconsideration. On February 23, 1968, Comelec received the Election Registrar's report confirming the lack of notification to candidates and Comelec representatives. Meanwhile, during the hearing of the election protest on May 17, 1968, Ondona's counsel manifested the withdrawal of the motion for reconsideration before Comelec to allow the election protest to proceed. The CFI rendered a decision on May 23, 1968, declaring Luengas the duly elected Mayor. Ondona appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. On June 18, 1968, Comelec denied Ondona's motion for reconsideration, citing the CFI's decision in the election protest. The Appeal: Ondona appealed both Comelec resolutions of January 16, 1968, and June 18, 1968, to the Supreme Court. These resolutions dismissed Ondona's petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation and denied his motion for reconsideration, respectively. The Supreme Court was asked to determine if Comelec erred in dismissing Ondona's petition. The Court noted that Ondona had pursued an election protest in the CFI, which he lost, and then sought to fall back on his petition with Comelec for annulment, which was deemed inequitable. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Commission on Elections.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections erred in dismissing petitioner's petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation. Whether the petitioner, by pursuing an election protest to its conclusion and losing, is barred from pursuing a petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated January 16, 1968, dismissing the petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation, and June 18, 1968, denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court ruled that the petitioner, having lost in the election protest, could not be permitted to hold on to his petition with the Comelec, as this would be unfair and inequitable. By insisting on the conclusion of the election protest, the petitioner recognized the validity of the proclamation and abandoned his petition for annulment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) did not err in dismissing the petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation. The Comelec initially dismissed the petition for lack of a forthcoming report from the Election Registrar and found that the canvass was validly made by a majority of the board members. Furthermore, the Comelec's own copies of election returns indicated that the petitioner would not emerge as the winner even with a recanvass, thus he would not be adversely affected by the proclamation. The subsequent denial of reconsideration was based on the fact that the petitioner had already pursued and lost an election protest before the Court of First Instance. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, Clenio L. Ondona, was barred from pursuing his petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation after he had lost in the election protest he filed. The Court found this situation peculiar and inequitable, stating that a party cannot be allowed to pursue an election protest and, in the event of a loss, fall back on a petition for nullification of the canvassing and proclamation. By insisting that the election protest proceed to its conclusion, Ondona implicitly recognized the validity of the proclamation and effectively abandoned his earlier petition for annulment. This conduct was deemed unfair and inequitable, preventing him from seeking relief from the Comelec after his defeat in the protest.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for annulment of canvass and proclamation, holding that the petitioner, having lost in the election protest he pursued, could not be permitted to hold on to his petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec). The Court reasoned that allowing this would be unfair and inequitable, as the petitioner would be allowed to pursue the protest and, upon losing, fall back on the Comelec to nullify the canvassing and proclamation. By insisting on the conclusion of the election protest, the petitioner recognized the validity of the proclamation and abandoned his petition for annulment.