Alberto Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alberto Jaramilla and Antonio Suyat were candidates for Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur, during the May 14, 2001 elections. Following the initial canvass, Ireneo Cortez was ranked seventh with 4,807 votes, Antonio Suyat ninth with 4,779 votes, and Alberto Jaramilla eighth with 4,815 votes. Suyat, upon review, discovered that Jaramilla had been credited with 73 votes in Precinct No. 34A1, an increase of 50 votes from the 23 votes indicated in the Election Return for that precinct. This discrepancy, if corrected, would relegate Jaramilla to ninth place with 4,765 votes, placing Cortez seventh and Suyat eighth. Procedural History: On June 13, 2001, Antonio Suyat filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which was treated as a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. Alberto Jaramilla opposed this petition, arguing it was filed out of time and lacked the required certification of non-forum shopping. On October 24, 2002, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution granting Suyat's petition, annulling Jaramilla's proclamation, creating a new Municipal Board of Canvassers to correct Jaramilla's votes to 23, and directing the proclamation of Suyat as the eighth Board Member and Cortez as the seventh. The Petition: Alberto Jaramilla filed the instant petition for certiorari with a prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, assailing the COMELEC en banc's resolution for grave abuse of discretion. Jaramilla argued that the COMELEC erred in not dismissing Suyat's petition because it was filed beyond the prescriptive period, lacked a certification against forum-shopping, and failed to pay the docket or filing fee on time. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the COMELEC's resolution, finding that the COMELEC en banc properly exercised its administrative function in correcting a manifest error in tabulation, and that the COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules in the interest of justice, particularly regarding timeliness and filing fees, especially when the substantive issue of vote tabulation was not contested on its merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc erred in taking cognizance of the petition for correction of manifest error despite it being filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the COMELEC en banc erred in giving due course to the petition despite the lack of a certification against forum shopping. Whether the COMELEC en banc erred in not dismissing the case for failure to pay the docket or filing fee on time. Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution en banc of the Commission on Elections dated October 24, 2002, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC en banc's jurisdiction and the timeliness of the petition: The Court reiterated that the COMELEC en banc can directly act on petitions involving purely administrative functions, such as the correction of manifest mistakes in the addition or tabulation of votes, without the need for a division to hear the case first. Such correction does not require opening ballot boxes or examining ballots. Furthermore, the COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules, including reglementary periods, in the interest of justice and for the speedy disposition of cases, as provided in Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Court found that the COMELEC properly exercised this discretion. On the lack of certification against forum shopping: Similar to the timeliness issue, the COMELEC has the authority to suspend its rules, including the requirement for a certification against forum shopping, in the interest of justice. The Court held that the COMELEC's discretion to suspend rules extends to this requirement, especially when the objective is to correct a manifest error that could affect the outcome of an election and uphold the will of the people. On the non-payment of filing fees: The Court noted that Section 18, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure uses the word "may," indicating that the COMELEC has the discretion to refuse action until fees are paid or to dismiss the case. This discretion, coupled with the general power to suspend rules in the interest of justice, means that non-payment of filing fees does not automatically mandate dismissal. The COMELEC may choose to proceed if it deems it necessary for the proper administration of election laws. On the COMELEC's finding of manifest error and grave abuse of discretion: The Court emphasized that the petitioner did not question the COMELEC's finding of manifest error in the tabulation of votes, which was supported by evidence (photocopies of election returns and statement of votes). The COMELEC's factual findings, when supported by evidence and not arbitrary, are given conclusive weight. The Court reiterated the principle that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to prevent the defeat of the people's will by mere technical objections. Therefore, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may exercise its administrative functions, such as correcting manifest errors in the tabulation of votes, directly en banc. The COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules, including reglementary periods and requirements for filing fees, in the interest of justice and speedy disposition of cases. Technicalities that would defeat the will of the people in elections should not be countenanced.