Hipe v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hector T. Hipe and respondent Ma. Cristina L. Vicencio were candidates for the mayoralty post in Catubig, Northern Samar, during the May 14, 2007 elections. During the canvass proceedings, Vicencio petitioned for the exclusion of seven election returns, alleging they were prepared under duress, threats, intimidation, or coercion, and that the election was marred by massive vote buying and other irregularities, preventing the returns from reflecting the true will of the electorate. Vicencio supported her petition with affidavits from election inspectors and other evidence. Procedural History: The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) ruled in favor of Vicencio, excluding the seven election returns. Hipe filed a notice of appeal and subsequently a verified appeal with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), arguing the petition for exclusion was filed out of time, the grounds were improper for a pre-proclamation controversy, and the evidence was insufficient. The COMELEC's Second Division dismissed Hipe's appeal for being filed out of time. Hipe filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but Vicencio was proclaimed mayor. The COMELEC En Banc denied Hipe's motion, affirming the dismissal and the exclusion of the returns. The Petition: Hipe filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court. He seeks to nullify and enjoin the implementation of the COMELEC En Banc's resolution. Hipe argues that the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by affirming the dismissal of his appeal, which he contends was erroneously deemed filed out of time. He also challenges the validity of the exclusion of the election returns.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the dismissal of petitioner Hipe's appeal for being filed out of time. Whether the exclusion of the seven election returns was supported by sufficient evidence. Whether respondent Vicencio substantially complied with the requirement that objections be made in writing.
Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious. The Supreme Court set aside the COMELEC En Banc and Second Division Resolutions insofar as they dismissed petitioner Hipe's appeal for being filed out of time. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC En Banc Resolution insofar as it declared the exclusion of the seven election returns to be valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal: The Supreme Court disagreed with the COMELEC's dismissal of Hipe's appeal for being filed out of time. While there is a presumption of regularity in official duty, the Court found that Hipe successfully proved that he did not receive a copy of the MBOC's written ruling. The affidavit of Hipe's counsel, who denied receiving the ruling and even denied being Hipe's counsel, along with the minutes of the MBOC proceedings indicating that the prescribed forms for the ruling were not yet available, militated against the COMELEC's finding. The Court held that when a party asserts a negative fact (non-receipt of a ruling) and the means of proof are equally within the control of both parties, the burden of proof is on the party averring the negative fact, which Hipe met. Consequently, the burden shifted to Vicencio to prove otherwise, which she failed to do. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC has the discretion to liberally construe its rules in the interest of justice, and technicalities should not defeat the will of the electorate. Therefore, the appeal should have been given due course. On the exclusion of the seven election returns: Despite finding merit in Hipe's argument regarding the timeliness of the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vicencio regarding the exclusion of the election returns. The Court held that the COMELEC's factual findings, which upheld the MBOC's exclusion based on the affidavits of the BEI members, were supported by substantial evidence. The Court reiterated the rule that factual findings of administrative bodies, especially the COMELEC, are binding on the courts unless there is absolutely no evidence or substantial evidence to support them. The Court noted that one of the witnesses presented by Hipe later recanted her testimony, casting doubt on the veracity of the affidavits submitted by Hipe and lending more credence to Vicencio's claims. The COMELEC En Banc correctly observed that a falsity in one statement can imply falsity in all ('Falsus in Onum, Falsus in Omnibus'). Thus, there was ample evidence to support the exclusion of the election returns, and Hipe's contention that they were excluded on mere technicalities was unfounded. On substantial compliance with written objections: The Supreme Court found Hipe's contention that Vicencio's objections were out of time to be without merit. Although Vicencio initially manifested oral objections and filed written objections and supporting documentary evidence on subsequent days, the Court considered these acts as substantial compliance with the requirement for written objections. Citing Marabur v. COMELEC, the Court held that the submission of formal offer of evidence, including the evidence itself, within the prescribed period can constitute substantial compliance. The Court emphasized that technicalities should not obstruct the determination of the electorate's true will, and the objective of the canvass is to ensure that it is based on genuine and untampered election returns. Given the ample evidence supporting the exclusion of the returns, Vicencio's substantial compliance was deemed sufficient to uphold her proclamation.
Main Doctrine
While the COMELEC may dismiss an appeal for being filed out of time, it should liberally construe its rules in the interest of justice, especially when the timeliness of the appeal hinges on disputed facts regarding the service of the ruling being appealed. However, the COMELEC's factual findings on the validity of election returns, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court.