|
|
|
|
MANIFEST ERRORS This contention is bereft of merit. First,
private respondent withdrew the quo warranto case before
filing the petition for annulment of proclamation. Second, while the
filing of a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent
filing of a pre-proclamation controversy, this principle admits of several
exceptions, such as when such petition is not the proper remedy.11 [Samad v. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631 (1993).] Under
§253 of the Omnibus Election Code, the grounds for a petition for quo
warranto are ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines of the respondent. Since in the present case, private
respondent alleged the existence of manifest errors in the preparation of
election returns, clearly, the proper remedy is not a petition for quo
warranto but a petition for annulment of proclamation. En Banc, Justice Mendoza, DIOSCORO O. ANGELIA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENTINO R. TAN, respondents [G.R. No. 135468. May 31, 2000] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + We take pains to emphasize that the same was filed only on July 18, 1998, thirty-four (34) days after the case had been submitted for resolution on June 14, 1998.9 [Original Record, p. 70.] When a case is already deemed submitted for decision or resolution, the court can only consider the evidence presented prior to this period. It can not and must not take into account evidence presented thereafter without obtaining prior leave of court. For as held in the case of Arroyo vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,10 [246 SCRA 384, citing Ticao vs. Nañawa, 116 Phil. 97.] "(t)he rule in an election protest is that the protestant or counter protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of protest or counter protest." A pre-proclamation controversy praying for the
correction of manifest errors must be filed not later than five (5) days
following the date of proclamation11 [Section 5 (b), Rule 27, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] while
an election protest must be filed within ten (10) days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.12 [Section 3,
Rule 35, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] At this juncture, we have to point out that the said Manifestation and Comments, whether it be considered a pre-proclamation controversy or an election protest, was filed beyond the reglementary period to do so. The COMELEC has not ruled on the matter of the
five uncanvassed election returns. It was alleged in the memorandum filed
by the Solicitor General that the "eight (8) precincts [for the five
uncanvassed election returns and the three erroneous statements of votes]
were not raised before the Commission en banc."13
[Rollo, p. 460.] The Commission on Elections may suspend its rules of procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate. Petitioner contends that there was no need to suspend the COMELEC rules of procedure in order to resolve the issues raised in the Supplemental Petition. We find that there was a need to do so. Contrary to what the COMELEC perceived, the
Supplemental Petition is a petition for correction of manifest errors, not
a petition for declaration of nullity. It squarely falls within the
definition provided in the case of Mentang vs. Commission on
Elections,14
[229
SCRA 666.] "(c)orrection of manifest errors has reference to errors in the election returns, in the entries of the statement of votes by precinct/per municipality, or in the certificate of canvass." Section 5 (2), Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure likewise provides: Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation
Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly with the Commission. - (a)
The following pre-proclamation controversies may be filed directly with
the Commission: Jjjuris xxx "2)......When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of the results during the canvassing as where xxx (3) there had been a mistake in the copying of the figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate of canvass" xxx The Supplemental Petition prayed for the correction of the erroneous copying of figures into the summary statement of votes from the statement of votes thus it is a petition for correction of manifest errors. Some of the definitions given for the word "manifest" are that it is evident to the eye and understanding; visible to the eye; that which is open, palpable, uncontrovertible; needing no evidence to make it more clear; not obscure or hidden.15 [55 CJS p. 662.] (citations omitted) "A manifest clerical error is – "’… one that is visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, and is apparent from the papers to the eye of the appraiser and collector, and does not include an error which may, by evidence dehors the record be shown to have been committed.’"16 [Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. vs. David, 52 OG 3145, 3151.] (citations omitted) Section 5 (b) of the same Rules also enunciates that: "If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than five (5) days following the date of proclamation" xxx Note should be made that the Supplemental Petition was filed on June 8, 1998 or exactly 21 days from the date of proclamation on May 18, 1998. It was therefore filed beyond the reglementary period to do so. The Supplemental Petition which was meant to be suppletory to the original petition involving a pre-proclamation controversy, is a prohibited pleading. Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure states: "Section 1. What Pleadings are not Allowed: xxx "(g) supplemental pleadings in special actions and in special cases. A pre-proclamation controversy is a special case in accordance with Section 5 (h), Rule 1, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, thus: "Sec. 5. Meaning
of Words. – Whenever used in these Rules, the following words or
terms shall mean: xxx "(h) Special Cases – shall refer to Pre-proclamation cases" Finally, Section 3, Rule 9 of the same Rules provides thus: "Sec. 3. Matters Subject of Supplemental Pleadings. -- Upon motion of a party the Commission or a Division, as the case may be, may, upon notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented." xxx The subject of the supplemental pleading filed by petitioner was not in accordance with the prescribed rule. As the name connotes, a supplemental petition merely supplies deficiencies in aid of the original petition. It cannot be used to introduce a new matter or a new cause of action or defense which is precisely what the petitioner had done in the instant case. "A supplemental
pleading is not like an amended pleading — a substitute for the original
one. It does not supersede the original, but assumes that the original
pleading is to stand, and the issues joined under the original pleading
remain as issues to be tried in the action."17
[Delbros Hotel Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 159
SCRA 533.] The issue raised in the Supplemental Petition is a new one, not even advanced in the original Petition. It sought the correction of Summary Statement of Votes No. 094338 which credited petitioner with only 1009 votes when Statement of Votes No. 094284 upon which the former was based listed 1099 votes for him. The original petition only asked for the correction of the double canvassing of five election returns and the exclusion of an election return of an inexistent precinct. It did not raise the issue of the incorrect total of the summary statement of votes and its correction. We quote some portions of the questioned resolution of the COMELEC, thus: "However, this
Commission cannot countenance an injustice that will be done to petitioner
if his allegation of error if proven would result into a loser becoming a
winner. The Commission in order to fulfill its mandate in faithfully
determining the will of the electorate may brush aside its rules if it
stands in the way of finding the truth. The Supreme Court recognized the
Commission’s paramount role when it pronounced that, ‘While election
controversies should be speedily settled, so as not to frustrate the
expression of the people’s will, this laudable objective does not free
the Commission from compliance with established principles of fairness and
justice and the adjudication of cases not on technicality but on their
substantive merits’ (Rodriguez versus Comelec, 119 SCRA 465). If the
rules are obstacles in the way of doing justice, then it can be said that
it is a mere technicality that should not stand in the way of determining
as to who between the contending parties have the mandate of the
electorate."18 [Orig. Record, p. 289; Rollo, p. 42.]
xxx "xxx (T)he
Commission in order to do justice and truly determine the rightful winner
in the elections may suspend its rules provided the right of the parties
are equally protected and act thereon pro hac vice." xxx19
[Ibid., p. 290; Ibid., p. 43.] From the above, we could glean why there was a need to suspend the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Without its suspension, the Supplemental Petition would have been dismissed. The allegation that it was Republic Act 7166 that was suspended and not the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure is not correct. Both R.A. 7166 and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure cover the same subject on which the suspension was made, to wit: Sections 17 and 20 of R.A. 7166 (now found under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines) and Sections 2 and 9, Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner alleges that the suspension of the rules should have been applied equally. We hold that the COMELEC did so. In his petition, Trinidad alleges that there is no provision or concept in the Omnibus Election Code or the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that mentions a "counter-petition" in pre-proclamation cases because a petition is an original action, a separate formal petition, or one that can stand alone. He further contends that there are some antecedents or jurisdictional requirements that must be met, such as payment of filing fees, mandatory compliance with the period within which to appeal or file action, the service of summons, setting of the case for hearing, the reception of evidence for both parties, etc. The Answer/Memorandum (with Counter-Petition for Correction) filed by private respondent is akin to a counterprotest. A counterprotest is not a prohibited pleading
under Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Such pleading is
provided for under Ordinary Actions (Section 3, Rule 20, 1993 COMELEC
Rules of Procedure) and is equivalent to an answer with a counterclaim
under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies suppletorily to the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure.20 [Section 1, Rule 41, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.] It is the contention of the petitioner that there
was no need for the COMELEC to suspend its rules of procedure because even
without the Supplemental Petition the COMELEC would have basis to order
the correction of errors since the petition itself clearly states the
number of votes garnered by petitioner and private respondent based on a
summation of the statement of votes by precinct.
The COMELEC, in its resolution of July 29, 1998,21 [Rollo, p. 44.] raised the following points: 1.......The Supplemental Petition is an entirely separate petition as it raised a new issue distinct and different in substance to the original petition. 2.......It was filed on June 8, 1998 or exactly 21 days from date of proclamation on May 18, 1998 and clearly filed out of time and is a prohibited pleading in the instant case. Despite these infirmities, the Supplemental
Petition was considered and the allegations therein given due
consideration. The COMELEC, in fact, credited petitioner with the
additional ninety (90) votes claimed in his Supplemental Petition.22
[Rollo, p. 45.] Petitioner thus benefited from the suspension of the rules of procedure when his Supplemental Petition was resolved in his favor. He should not be heard to say that the COMELEC did not give him the same treatment accorded the private respondent. In the instant case, however, we do not find the COMELEC to have exceeded nor abused its jurisdiction. Unless it is shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with its decisions and rulings. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSEDEN BANC, Justice Buena,
WENCESLAO P. TRINIDAD, petitioner vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
THE PASAY CITY BOARD OF ELECTION CANVASSERS and JOVITO CLAUDIO, respondents.[G.R.
No. 134657. December 15, 1999] Third. Petitioner further contends that he
was denied procedural due process because the COMELEC issued its
resolution without notice and hearing. Indeed, it appears that the
Municipal Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC did not comply with the
procedure that should have been followed in the instant case.
In Castromayor v. COMELEC,12 [250 SCRA 298 (1995).] the returns from a precinct were overlooked by the Municipal Board of Canvassers in computing the total number of votes obtained by the candidates for the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan, for which reason the COMELEC directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers to make the necessary corrections. We held that, as the case involved a manifest error, although the COMELEC erred in annulling the proclamation of petitioner without notice and hearing, the expedient course of action was for the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and, after notice and hearing in accordance with Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to effect the necessary corrections on the certificate of canvass and proclaim the winning candidate or candidates on the basis thereof. Said Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure states: Correction of Errors in Tabulation or Tallying of Results by the Board of Canvassers. ¾ (a) Where it is clearly shown before proclamation that manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying of election returns, or certificates of canvass, during the canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election returns of one precinct or two or more copies of a certificate of canvass were tabulated more than once, (2) two copies of the election returns or certificate of canvass were tabulated separately, (3) there was a mistake in the adding or copying of the figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by precinct, or (4) so-called election returns from non-existent precincts were included in the canvass, the board may motu proprio, or upon verified petition by any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed. (b) The order for correction must be made in writing and must be promulgated. (c) Any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political parties aggrieved by said order may appeal therefrom to the Commission within twenty-four (24) hours from the promulgation. (d) Once an appeal is made, the board of canvassers shall not proclaim the winning candidates, unless their votes are not affected by the appeal. (e) The appeal must implead as respondents the Board of Canvassers concerned and all parties who may be adversely affected thereby. (f) Upon receipt of the appeal, the Clerk of Court concerned shall forthwith issue summons, together with a copy of the appeal, to the respondents. (g) The Clerk of Court concerned shall immediately set the appeal for hearing. (h) The appeal shall be heard and decided by the Commission en banc. This case likewise involves manifest errors.
Election Return No. 3700088 from Precinct Nos. 84-A/84-A-1 is claimed to
show 92 votes in favor of private respondent but indicate a total in words
and figures of only 82 votes. On the other hand, Election Return No.
3700023 allegedly shows 13 votes for petitioner but indicates in words and
figures 18 votes. These discrepancies can be easily resolved without
opening the ballot boxes and recounting the ballots. COMELEC Resolution
No. 2962 provides that "in case there exist discrepancies in the
votes of any candidate in taras/tally as against the votes obtained in
words/figures in the same returns/certificates, the votes in taras/tally
shall prevail." In the present case, although the COMELEC
annulled the proclamation of petitioner, it merely directed the Municipal
Board of Canvassers to "RECONVENE within five (5) days from receipt
hereof and effect the corrections in the total number of votes received by
the candidates in Precinct Nos. 84-A/84-A-1 (clustered) and Precinct No.
23-A and thereafter PROCLAIM the winning candidate/s for Municipal Kagawad
based on the corrected results." It was the Municipal Board of
Canvassers which the COMELEC ordered to actually effect the necessary
corrections, if any, in the said election returns and, on the basis
thereof, proclaim the winning candidate or candidates as member or members
of the Sangguniang Bayan. In accordance with our ruling in Castromayor,
the expedient action to take is to direct the Municipal Board of
Canvassers to reconvene and, after notice and hearing in accordance with
Rule 27, §7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, to effect the necessary
corrections, if any, in the election returns and, on the basis thereof,
proclaim the winning candidate or candidates as member or members of the
Sangguniang Bayan.
En
Banc, Justice Mendoza, DIOSCORO
O. ANGELIA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENTINO
R. TAN, respondents
[G.R. No. 135468. May 31, 2000]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ Petitioner nonetheless contends that SPC No. 98-143 and SPC No. 98-206 must be dismissed because private respondent failed to raise the issue of manifest error before the appropriate board of canvassers in accordance with the second sentence of Section 15 of RA 7166. We disagree. The issue of manifest error in the certificate of canvass for Malabon has been raised before the district board of canvassers before petitioner could be proclaimed and said board has in fact ruled on the issue.35 [Minutes of the Canvassing conducted on May 28, 1998 by the District Board of Canvassers for Malabon-Navotas, Rollo, pp, 33-37.] We find this as sufficient compliance with the law. The facts show that it was impossible for private respondent to raise the issue before the Malabon municipal board of canvassers as it still did not have a copy of the statement of votes and the precinct list at the time of the canvassing in the municipal level. At that time, private respondent still had no knowledge of the alleged manifest error. He, however, lost no time in notifying the COMELEC Chairman and the district board of the alleged error upon discovery thereof. We find petitioner's argument, therefore, to be devoid of merit. En Banc,
Justice Puno, FEDERICO
S. SANDOVAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CANUTO
SENEN A. ORETA, respondents
[G.R. No.133842. January 26, 2000] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The case before us hinges on the question of whether or not to include in the canvass the contested election returns. While it is true that the Board of Canvassers is essentially a ministerial body and has no power to pass upon questions of whether there are illegal voters or other election frauds. (Dizon v. Provincial Board, 52 Phil 47; Sangki v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1392), it is also true that in case of patent irregularity in the election returns, such as patent erasures and super-impositions in words and figures on the face of the returns submitted to the board, it is imperative for the board to stop the canvass of such returns so as to allow time for verification. A canvass and proclamation made withstanding such patent defects in the returns which may affect the result of the election, without awaiting remedies, is null and void. (Purisima v. Salonga, 15 SCRA 704). En
Banc, Justice Kapunan, [G.R. No. 136282. February 15, 2000] FRANCISCO
D. OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD
OF CANVASSERS OF STA. RITA, PAMPANGA and ARTHUR L. SALALILA, respondents.
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
