Papandayan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Yusoph Papandayan was a candidate for mayor in Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1992 elections. He filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to compel the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of Precinct No. 23-A-1 to complete its election return by including 32 unsigned ballots and the BEI of Precinct No. 40-A-1 to include seven unsigned ballots. He also prayed that the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) be directed to include the election returns of Precincts Nos. 23-A-1, 40-A-1, 10-A (partially burned but legible), and 10-A-1 (two pages marked "1" but otherwise genuine) in the canvass and thereafter proclaim the winning candidate. Procedural History: On May 26, 1992, the COMELEC en banc granted petitioner's requests in Minute Resolution No. 92-1621, directing the MBC to comply and complete the canvass. The MBC included the returns for Precincts Nos. 10-A and 10-A-1. For Precinct No. 40-A-1, the completed return showed petitioner with 45 votes and private respondent with 19 votes. However, private respondent verbally objected to its inclusion, claiming it was not submitted by the assigned poll clerk. The MBC did not open the envelope containing this return as the BEI had not complied with the COMELEC order to appreciate the seven unsigned ballots. Petitioner appealed this ruling to the COMELEC (SPC No. 92-341), arguing non-compliance with the order. Private respondent countered that the seven ballots would not affect the election outcome. Petitioner then filed another petition (SPC No. 92-358) seeking to nullify the proclamation of private respondent and for a new canvass including the return from Precinct No. 40-A-1. On June 16, 1992, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 92-1805, directing the MBC to determine if the seven questioned ballots would materially affect the election results. If material, the BEI was to reconvene; otherwise, the canvass would proceed without those ballots. The COMELEC en banc later consolidated SPC Cases Nos. 92-182, 92-341, and 92-358 and referred them to the First Division. On September 18, 1992, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the three cases, stating SPC 92-182 was resolved by Minute Resolution No. 92-1621, SPC 92-341 was dismissed by Resolution No. 92-1805, and SPC 92-358 was dismissed by Resolution No. 2489. It also noted that the subsequent cases were prohibited motions for reconsideration and sustained the proclamation of private respondent. On October 23, 1992, the COMELEC en banc affirmed this resolution. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to annul the COMELEC resolutions dated September 18, 1992, and October 23, 1992.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC erred in dismissing SPC Case No. 92-182. Whether the COMELEC erred in dismissing SPC Case No. 92-341. Whether the COMELEC erred in dismissing SPC Case No. 92-358. Whether the subsequent petitions filed by the petitioner constitute prohibited pleadings; and the validity of the election return of Precinct No. 40-A-1.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated September 18, 1992, and October 23, 1992, are sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of SPC Case No. 92-182: The Supreme Court held that SPC Case No. 92-182 was considered terminated when the COMELEC en banc granted the petitioner's prayer in Resolution No. 92-1621. This resolution directed the completion of election returns for certain precincts, including Precinct No. 40-A-1, thereby resolving the core request of the petitioner in that case. Therefore, the subsequent dismissal of this case by the COMELEC First Division was based on its prior resolution by the en banc. On the dismissal of SPC Case No. 92-341: The Court found that SPC Case No. 92-341, which was an appeal from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, was also deemed terminated by COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 92-1805. This resolution directed the MBC to determine the materiality of the seven questioned ballots from Precinct No. 40-A-1. The MBC subsequently reported that these ballots would not affect the election results. The Supreme Court found no reason to depart from this ruling, as the issues were factual and the petitioner failed to raise substantial issues warranting a reversal. On the dismissal of SPC Case No. 92-358: The Supreme Court ruled that SPC Case No. 92-358 could not prosper for lack of jurisdiction. The Court classified this action as an election contest, the jurisdiction of which is vested in the regular courts, not the COMELEC. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly dismissed this case on jurisdictional grounds. On the nature of the subsequent petitions and the election return of Precinct No. 40-A-1: The Court affirmed the COMELEC's finding that SPC Cases Nos. 92-341 and 92-358 were in the guise of motions for reconsideration of COMELEC Resolution No. 92-1805. Under Section 1 of Rule 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, motions for reconsideration of an en banc ruling are prohibited pleadings. The Court reiterated that these subsequent filings sought the canvassing of the election return of Precinct No. 40-A-1, which had already been addressed by prior COMELEC resolutions. The Supreme Court noted that the election return relied upon by the petitioner was dubious, as it was submitted by a person other than the assigned poll clerk, a fact not controverted by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the entire precinct was not disenfranchised, as votes were appreciated exclusive of the seven questioned ballots. For Precinct No. 40-A-1, petitioner had already been credited 23 votes against private respondent's 19 votes based on the appreciated ballots.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari to annul COMELEC resolutions dismissing election cases will fail if the issues raised are factual and the petitioner fails to raise substantial issues meriting a reversal. Furthermore, subsequent filings that are in the nature of motions for reconsideration of an en banc ruling are prohibited pleadings.