Tugade v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eduard V. Tugade and private respondent Florencio P. Agustin were candidates for Punong Barangay of San Raymundo, Balungao, Pangasinan in the July 15, 2002 elections. Initial canvass showed Tugade with 246 votes and Agustin with 245 votes, leading to Tugade's proclamation. Procedural History: Agustin filed an election protest, questioning votes in Precinct No. 60-A/60-A-1. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially found Agustin garnered 120 votes and Tugade 122 votes in the contested precincts, leading to a final tally of 246 for Agustin and 242 for Tugade, declaring Agustin the winner. The MTC denied Agustin's motion for execution pending appeal. The records were transmitted to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The Petition: The COMELEC (Second Division) reversed the MTC decision, declaring a tie between Agustin and Tugade with 246 votes each. It ordered the Barangay Board of Canvassers to reconvene and conduct a drawing of lots to proclaim the winner. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc was denied for procedural defects. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the MTC decision and declaring a tie between the candidates. Whether the COMELEC correctly ordered a drawing of lots to break the tie.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated October 25, 2005, and the Order dated January 5, 2006, of the respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) are AFFIRMED. The COMELEC correctly declared a tie between Eduard V. Tugade and Florencio P. Agustin and ordered a drawing of lots to determine the winner for the position of Punong Barangay of San Raymundo, Balungao, Pangasinan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to question factual conclusions made by the COMELEC, such as the determination of a tie between candidates. The inquiry in a certiorari proceeding is limited to whether the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the COMELEC's appreciation of the votes, which led to the declaration of a tie, was a factual determination that did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The petition merely stated a general assertion that the COMELEC's resolution was "not in accord with the law or with the applicable decisions," which is insufficient to establish grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion requires an act that is "whimsically or arbitrarily" performed, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or exercised in a capricious or whimsical manner amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such an act was wanting in this case. On the issue of ordering a drawing of lots: The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's order for a drawing of lots. Section 240 of the Omnibus Election Code explicitly provides that whenever two or more candidates receive an equal and highest number of votes, the board of canvassers, after notice to the tied candidates, shall hold a special public meeting for the drawing of lots. The candidate favored by luck shall be proclaimed as elected. The Court noted that the COMELEC En Banc, in ordering the immediate implementation of the resolution for the drawing of lots, acted in accordance with this provision. The law clearly outlines the procedure for resolving election ties through drawing of lots, and the COMELEC's action was a faithful application of this statutory mandate.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not the proper remedy to question the COMELEC's factual conclusion that there is a tie between candidates, as such inquiry is limited to whether the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC correctly ordered a drawing of lots to break a tie in an election for Punong Barangay, pursuant to Section 240 of the Omnibus Election Code.