Castromayor v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nicolas C. Castromayor was proclaimed as the eighth-ranking councilor in Calinog, Iloilo, based on the canvass of election returns from the May 8, 1995 elections. Subsequently, the Chairperson of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), Alice M. Garin, discovered an error in the vote computation, where the votes for Nilda C. Demorito were understated by 62 votes due to an overlooked precinct return. This correction would place Demorito ahead of Castromayor. Procedural History: Garin reported the error to the COMELEC, requesting authority to reconvene the MBC to correct the mistake, annul Castromayor's proclamation, and proclaim Demorito. The COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 95-2414, directing the MBC to reconvene for this purpose. Castromayor protested this resolution, arguing it was issued without notice and hearing. The Petition: Castromayor filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul COMELEC Resolution No. 95-2414. He contended that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolution without affording him notice and hearing, citing the ruling in Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the COMELEC resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 95-2414 directing the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and annul the proclamation of petitioner without prior notice and hearing. Whether a proclamation made on the basis of manifest errors in vote tabulation can be annulled and corrected by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, even after the proclamation has been made.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED, and the Temporary Restraining Order previously issued is LIFTED. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's authority to direct the reconvening of the MBC to correct manifest errors in vote tabulation, provided due process is observed. The Court accepted the representation that the COMELEC resolution contemplated a hearing before the MBC where the petitioner would be heard, and only if warranted would the proclamation be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that while the COMELEC resolution directing the MBC to reconvene to annul a proclamation might appear to bypass due process, it accepted the representation that the intended process involved a hearing before the MBC where the petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to present his objections. The Court reasoned that the COMELEC did not directly annul the proclamation but directed the MBC to do so, implying a subsequent process. The Court found it expedient to accept this representation to avoid remanding the case, considering that the MBC's notice to the parties indicated a reconvening for "correction of the errors noted in the Statement of Votes Per Precinct/Municipality," rather than an outright annulment. The Court emphasized that the proceedings before the MBC should be summary, with a right to appeal to the COMELEC en banc. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed that the COMELEC has the power to correct manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of election returns, even after a proclamation has been made, by applying the principles of Rule 27, Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Court reasoned that a proclamation based on manifest errors, such as arithmetic mistakes in the Statement of Votes, is void and thus not a valid proclamation at all. Therefore, the COMELEC's power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation is not divested by the fact that a proclamation has already occurred. The Court cited Duremdes v. COMELEC in sustaining the COMELEC's power to order corrections to the Statement of Votes, which forms the basis of the proclamation, and stated that the procedure for pre-proclamation controversies can be applied to corrections in vote computation even post-proclamation.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to direct a Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) to reconvene and correct manifest errors in the tabulation of votes, even after a proclamation has been made, provided that due process, including notice and hearing to all concerned parties, is strictly observed. The Court emphasized that a proclamation made due to clear arithmetic errors in the Statement of Votes is void and can be annulled, and the aggrieved party has the right to appeal such corrections to the COMELEC en banc.