Velayo v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arthur V. Velayo and Ernesto Natividad were candidates for Mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija in the May 11, 1998 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) commenced canvassing on May 12, 1998. Private respondent Natividad orally objected to two election returns, which were denied. On May 13, 1998, Natividad filed SPC No. 98-002 with the COMELEC (2nd Division) challenging the MBC's composition and proceedings, and seeking annulment of certain election returns. He also sought disqualification of the MBC Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The MBC denied the suspension of canvass and disqualification requests on May 14, 1998. Natividad appealed this ruling. On May 17, 1998, Velayo was proclaimed Mayor with 10,697 votes against Natividad's 10,427 votes. Procedural History: On May 18, 1998, Natividad filed SPC No. 98-050, an appeal from the MBC's adverse ruling, seeking suspension of proclamation and annulment of proclamation. He filed a third case, SPC No. 98-073, on May 19, 1998, appealing rulings on contested election returns. In both cases, neither the MBC nor Velayo were named respondents, nor were they furnished copies. On May 21, 1998, Natividad filed a Supplemental Appeal in SPC No. 98-073, again without making the MBC or Velayo parties or furnishing them copies. On June 8, 1998, Natividad filed a motion for admission of new and additional evidence in both SPC No. 98-050 and SPC No. 98-073, without furnishing Velayo a copy. On June 9, 1998, the COMELEC (2nd Division) dismissed the three cases as moot and academic due to Velayo's proclamation. Natividad received the order on June 22, 1998, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 25, 1998, without furnishing Velayo a copy. The cases were elevated to the COMELEC en banc. On October 6, 1998, the COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution annulling Velayo's proclamation and directing the MBC to convene, exclude specific precincts, and proclaim the winning candidate. Velayo was informed of this resolution via telegram on October 8, 1998. The MBC convened on October 16, 1998, and proclaimed Natividad as Mayor. The Petition: Velayo filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC en banc's Resolution dated October 6, 1998, on grounds of ultra vires issuance, violation of due process, grave abuse of discretion for not dismissing the motion for reconsideration as tardy, for excluding votes without notice and hearing, for annulling his proclamation without notice and hearing, and for not dismissing pre-proclamation cases that should have been election protests.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc Resolution dated October 6, 1998, was issued ultra vires and void ab initio for being ex parte and violative of due process. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing respondent Natividad's Motion for Reconsideration for being filed out of time. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding votes from specific precincts without notice and hearing. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling petitioner Velayo's proclamation without notice and hearing. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the pre-proclamation cases as they should have been treated as election protests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Resolution of the respondent COMELEC (en banc) dated October 6, 1998, was set aside. The proclamation of private respondent Ernesto Natividad was declared NULL and VOID, and COMELEC was ordered to REINSTATE petitioner Arthur V. Velayo as Mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process, ex parte proceedings, reliance on new evidence, and the basis for annulling the proclamation: The Court found that the COMELEC failed to be faithful to Section 3 of Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which mandates that all pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily after due notice. The records showed that petitioner Velayo was not furnished any notice of the pre-proclamation proceedings against him from beginning to end. He was not given copies of Natividad's notices of appeal, petitions, or motions filed with the COMELEC. Even the COMELEC's Second Division failed to notify him of the promulgation of its order dismissing the cases or of Natividad's motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC en banc's resolution annulling his proclamation was the first official communication he received regarding the proceedings. The Court held that Velayo, as the proclaimed Mayor and a real party in interest, was clearly prejudiced by these proceedings and his non-inclusion as a respondent, coupled with the lack of notice, constituted a clear denial of due process. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that pre- and post-proclamation proceedings should be resolved summarily but not ex parte. It reiterated that petitioner Velayo had no participation whatsoever in the proceedings before the COMELEC, admitting that he was not a party to the cases. The Court cited Jagunap v. Commission on Elections, which held that a proclamation can only be set aside after due notice and hearing, and that proceedings conducted without notice and hearing are arbitrary and void. Furthermore, the Court found that the COMELEC annulled Velayo's proclamation based on new and additional evidence submitted by Natividad, which was not presented before the Board of Canvassers and to which Velayo was not given an opportunity to refute. This reliance on new evidence without affording the adverse party a chance to rebut it further violated due process. The Court found that it did not clearly appear that the COMELEC annulled Velayo's proclamation based on the official records and evidence adduced before the Board of Canvassers, as required by Republic Act No. 7166. The Court emphasized the importance of these official records, which include contested election returns, objections, oppositions, and rulings of the Board. Without these official records, the COMELEC cannot validly decide a pre-proclamation controversy. There was no showing that these records were forwarded to and used by the COMELEC. Moreover, the Court found the affidavits of Natividad's watchers, which formed the basis of the COMELEC's decision, to be suspect and lacking in credibility due to inconsistencies and the self-serving nature of the statements. The Court noted that the affidavits did not establish any specific electoral malpractice by Velayo or his people, nor did they prove that any election return was tampered with. On the issue of the Motion for Reconsideration being filed out of time: The Court disagreed with private respondent's contention that the 5-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration should be counted from the date of his receipt of the COMELEC's June 9, 1998 Order. Citing Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Court clarified that the period should be counted from the promulgation of the order. The Court emphasized that a party cannot feign ignorance of the promulgation date, as notice is served in advance, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. On the issue of statistical improbability and excluding votes from specific precincts without notice and hearing: The Court found the COMELEC's resort to the doctrine of statistical improbability to be flawed. The Court acknowledged that it is possible for candidates to receive zero votes in some precincts, citing instances from past elections. The Court cautioned that the doctrine of statistical improbability must be viewed restrictively and applied with utmost care to avoid disenfranchising innocent voters. It stressed that this doctrine, involving a question of fact, should not be determined ex parte, especially when premised on questionable affidavits and election returns that appear regular on their face. The Court also found that the COMELEC failed to provide notice and hearing before excluding votes from specific precincts. On the issue of annulling petitioner Velayo's proclamation without notice and hearing: The Court found that the COMELEC failed to provide notice and hearing before annulling petitioner Velayo's proclamation. On the issue of not dismissing the pre-proclamation cases: The Court did not explicitly address this issue in the provided ratio decidendi. Therefore, there is no corresponding ratio for this issue.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it annulled the proclamation of a winning candidate without affording him due process, specifically notice and hearing, and by relying on new and additional evidence not presented before the Board of Canvassers.