Alejandro v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Manuel A. Alejandro and private respondent Damian L. Co were rival candidates for Vice-Mayor of Alicia, Isabela, in the May 10, 2004 elections. Following the initial canvass, Alejandro was proclaimed the winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) on May 13, 2004. Co subsequently filed a petition to annul Alejandro's proclamation, alleging manifest errors in the MBC's tallying of votes. Co contended that the MBC's Certificate of Canvass of Votes showed Alejandro with 11,866 votes, whereas the election returns from all 156 precincts indicated Alejandro received 11,152 votes and Co received 11,401 votes, making Co the rightful winner by 249 votes. Co asserted that this discrepancy resulted from vote-padding and vote-shaving ('dagdag-bawas') by the MBC or its tabulators. Procedural History: Private respondent Co filed his petition to annul Alejandro's proclamation on May 24, 2004. The Election Officer of Alicia, Isabela, admitted that manifest errors were committed in the preparation of the statement of votes and recommended the reconvening of the MBC to correct these errors. Petitioner Alejandro argued that Co's petition was filed out of time, whether treated as a pre-proclamation controversy or a petition for annulment of proclamation. The COMELEC Second Division, in a Resolution dated November 23, 2004, granted Co's petition in part, ordering the Election Officer to reconvene the MBC to correct the tallying errors. Alejandro sought reconsideration, which was elevated to the COMELEC en banc due to a lack of filing fee. The COMELEC en banc, in a Resolution dated February 22, 2005, denied Alejandro's motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Second Division's resolution. Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc issued a Writ of Execution on March 30, 2005, ordering Alejandro to vacate the office. The Petition: Petitioner Manuel A. Alejandro filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the COMELEC en banc's February 22, 2005 Resolution. Alejandro argues that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion and denied him due process by: (1) determining that Co's petition was timely filed, despite it allegedly being filed eleven days after proclamation; (2) failing to order hearings for the examination of disputed election documents; (3) not identifying the specific errors to be corrected; (4) assuming manifest errors existed without competent proof, relying instead on the admission of the former Election Officer, who was not authorized to represent the MBC and whose evidence was allegedly illegally procured; and (5) affirming a resolution that allegedly did not nullify the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers. The petition also questions the COMELEC's affirmation of a non-existent resolution and the basis for the correction of errors.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondent Co’s petition to annul petitioner Alejandro’s proclamation was timely filed. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the Answer filed by Election Officer Angangan and ruling that manifest errors were committed. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in not conducting a hearing for the examination of the disputed election documents. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the MBC to reconvene to rectify its errors and to proclaim the winner in the vice-mayoralty race in Alicia, Isabela.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the COMELEC Second Division and en banc. The status quo order previously issued was lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court held that the COMELEC correctly ruled the petition for annulment was timely filed. Although the deadline fell on a Sunday (May 23, 2004), and COMELEC Resolution No. 6624 declared weekends as working days for COMELEC employees, this resolution was internal and did not compel the public to file on a Sunday. Therefore, filing on the next working day (May 24, 2004) was seasonable. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not impede the determination of the electorate's true will, citing Dela Llana v. COMELEC. The COMELEC did not err in treating the petition as one for annulment of proclamation, as this aligns with jurisprudence where mere mathematical errors in tabulation, not involving ballot examination, warrant such treatment, as seen in Mentang v. COMELEC and Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC. On admitting Angangan's Answer and finding manifest errors: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Election Officer Angangan, as Chairperson of the MBC, admitted in her Answer that manifest errors were committed in the preparation of the Statement of Votes and prayed for the reconvening of the MBC to correct them. The COMELEC's power of supervision and control over boards of canvassers includes the authority to revise or set aside their actions. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of no proof was contradicted by his own petition, which attached the certificate of canvass and disputed election returns. The COMELEC's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Court, and the existence of discrepancies between election returns and the statement of votes was established. On not conducting a hearing: The Court ruled that the petitioner was not denied due process. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard, which can be satisfied through pleadings. The COMELEC Second Division acknowledged the need for notice and hearing but stated this would be satisfied when the MBC reconvened. Petitioner participated in the proceedings before the MBC and sought reconsideration, and his issues were extensively addressed by the COMELEC en banc. Therefore, the opportunity to be heard was afforded. On ordering the MBC to reconvene: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Second Division's resolution was filed late (December 1, 2004, beyond the five-day period from promulgation) and the filing fee was paid even later (December 13, 2004). Consequently, the motion did not suspend the execution of the resolution. The COMELEC correctly reasoned that the MBC's duty to proclaim based on election returns is ministerial, and when errors are known, the COMELEC has the power to order a new canvass even after proclamation to ascertain the true will of the electorate, citing Javier v. COMELEC and Milla v. Balmores-Laxa. The paramount consideration is the determination of the electorate's true will.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's ruling that a petition to annul a proclamation based on manifest errors in tabulation was timely filed, even if filed on the next working day after a Sunday deadline, and that the COMELEC has the power to order the reconvening of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to correct such errors to ascertain the true will of the electorate.