Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL MILLA v. REGINA BALMORES-LAXA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 186359 2010-03-05	JESUS O. TYPOCO v. COMELEC
We find that the COMELEC, in ordering the correction of manifest errors in the SOVP and COC, merely exercised its bounden duty to ascertain the true will of the electorate of the province. Proven during the proceedings before it were errors or discrepancies in the recording or transferring of votes from the SOVP of Labo to the COC, such that the votes in the latter document did not reflect the true and correct votes received by the candidates. SOVPs are the basis of COCs;[27] the two must jibe with each other. Certainly, an error in transposing the contents of one to the other only calls for a clerical act of reflecting in the said election documents the true and correct votes received by the candidates.[28] This does not involve the opening of the ballot boxes, examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns. All that is required is to reconvene the board of canvassers for it to rectify the error it committed in order that the true will of the voters will be given effect.[29] The previous proclamation of petitioner will not be a hindrance to the said correction. The proclamation and assumption of office of petitioner based on a faulty tabulation is flawed right from the very beginning, and may, therefore, be annulled.[30]
	GR No. 184586 2009-07-22	RAFAEL FLAUTA v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Statement of Votes (SOV) is a tabulation per precinct of the votes garnered by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. It is a vital component of the electoral process; it supports the Certificate of Canvass and is the basis for proclamation. Its preparation is an administrative function of the Board of Canvassers, a purely mechanical act the performance of which the COMELEC has direct control and supervision.[20] In Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[21] its significance was underscored, and the Court sustained the COMELEC's power to annul the proclamation of a winning candidate who had taken his oath and assumed office due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the SOV, viz: The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.
	GR No. 167224 2007-09-21	NOLITO L. MAÑAGO v. COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, in Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections,[15] the Court held that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[16] It is highly imperative that the will of the electorate be determined, and technicalities dispensed with if it hampers such determination. A stubborn subservience to technicalities that would result in upholding a patently void proclamation will never be allowed by this Court.[17]
	GR NO. 167137 2007-03-14	ANTENOR A. ARBONIDA QUISUMBING, J.
In Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[14] where a similar factual background existed, this Court stated that the statement of votes forms the basis of the certificate of canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.[15] If a candidate's proclamation is based on a statement of votes which contains erroneous entries, it is a nullity. As the COMELEC correctly stated,[16] where a proclamation is null and void, it is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to annul the proclamation.[17] Moreover, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that the COMELEC has the power to suspend its own rules so as not to defeat the will of the electorate.[18] In Milla, the Court allowed the filing of a petition one month after the proclamation of the petitioner therein on the ground that an invalid proclamation is no proclamation. It pronounced thus:...While our election laws are silent when such and similar petitions may be filed directly with the COMELEC, the above-quoted Section 5, Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five (5) days following the date of proclamation. The COMELEC, however, could suspend its own Rules of Procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate. For adherence to technicality that would put a stamp on a palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will, cannot be countenanced.[19]
	GR NO. 167101 2006-01-31	MANUEL A. ALEJANDRO v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Consequently, by margin of 72 votes, private respondent indisputably won the challenged seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the sixth district of Pangasinan. Petitioner's proclamation and assumption into public office was therefore flawed from the beginning, the same having been based on a faulty tabulation. Hence, respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the illegal proclamation. [19] In Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, [20] we sustained the power of the COMELEC to annul the proclamation, due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the statement of votes, of a winning candidate for municipal councilor who had taken his oath and assumed office as such. We ruled therein that:The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.
	GR No. 155717 2003-10-23	ALBERTO JARAMILLA v. COMELEC AZCUNA, J.
As stated in the provision, and in line with the Court's recent pronouncement in Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[8]election cases including pre-proclamation controversies should first be heard and decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the commission en banc if a motion for reconsideration of the division is filed.