EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 53354, July 22, 1985 ]
CARLOS BATINO, JR., ESTEBAN MENDOZA, AGAPITO MENDOZA, LEOVIGILDO RAFOLS, CORNELIO MARZAN, REGINO PANGJULAN, AND MARCIAL DIMAPILIS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO EVANGELISTA, RODOLFO LOPEZ, RICARDO GUIRNALDA, HILARION R. MAGLABE, JOSE NOEL B. BENITEZ,
EMMANUEL P. TOLENTINO, EUFRONIO G. ERNI, JOSE A. MOJICA, AND BENJAMIN ERNI, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
DE LA FUENTE, J.:
Petition for certiorari to annul and set asid the respondent Commission's resolution upholding the board of canvasser's exclusion of the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19, Tagaytay City,[1] the implementing
Memorandum[2] and the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation,[3] as well as all acts and proceedings subsequent thereto. It is also prayed therein that the Board of Canvassers for Tagaytay City be ordered "to canvass the
[aforementioned] election returns … and together with the canvass already made [with respect to] 26 election returns, to proclaim immediately the winning candidates, on the basis of such completed canvass of the 28 election returns."[4]
Petitioners Carlos Batino, Jr., Esteban Mendoza, Agapito Mendoza, Leovigildo Rafols, Cornelio Marzan, Regino Pangjulan and Marcial Dimapilis, together with herein respondent Benjamin Erni, were the Nacionalista Party (NP) candidtes in the 1980 local elections for Mayor of Tagaytay City, Vice-Mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of saidcity, respectively. Private respondents Hilario R. Maglabe, Jose Noel B. Benitez, Emmanuel P. Tolentino, Eufronio G. Erni and Jose A. Mojica, together with Ligaya Toledo, Tagumpay Reyes and Delia Bronquesa, were the respective standard bearers of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL).
Tagaytay City was listed by respondent Commission as one of the "problem areas" in the 1980 local elections. A special action team of the Commission was accordingly assigned to Tagaytay City which was placed under its direct control and supervision. The canvass of the votes cast was made by the City Board of Canvassers at the central office of the Commission, which canvass was terminated on February 20, 1980. On the said date, after completion of its canvass of 26 election returns (excluding those of Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19), the Board issued a unanimous ruling setting and the two election returns from said voting centers and elevating the matter to the respondent Commission for resolution. The Board made no proclamation of the winning candidates on the basis of the 26 election returns. The parties were, thereafter, required by the said Commission to submit their respective position papers.[5]
On March 1, 1980, the respondent Commission issued its questioned resolution wherein it "declared as spurious or manufactured" the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19, and excluded the two returns from the canvass of votes. The Commission also directed the board of canvassers to convene immediately and upon completion of the canvass to "proclaim the winners". The Commission issued an implementing Memorandum on March 2, 1980. As directed, the Board completed its canvass and thereafter announced the final results,[6] to wit:
The question raised by the petitioners for resolution is whether or not the respondent Commission gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The questioned resolution sets forth the findings and conclusions of the said Commission as follows:
Besides, the petitioners' challenge is basically directed against the sufficiency of evidence considered and relied upon by the Commission. Their petition calls for a "digging into the merits and unearthing errors of judgment," which is not proper in certiorari proceedings.[12] As a rule, factual findings of the Commission cannot be reviewed by this Court[13] and are binding provided they are supported by substantial evidence.[14] After all, the Commission is in a "peculiarly advantageous position" to decide political controversies[15] or "better position to appreciate and assess the vital circumstances closely and accurately".[16] We may disagree with its findings and conclusions as to which voting center should be excluded, "but still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out" unless it is clearly shown that it acted "whimsically or capriciously or without any rational basis".[17]
As earlier noted, the matter passed upon by the respondent Commission was a pre-proclamation controversy over the exclusion of two election returns. Its decision was promulgated on March 1, 1980, or two months after the January 30, 1980 local election. Respondent Maglabe and the other private respondents were proclaimed the winning candidetes on March 2, 1980. They forthwith took their respective oaths of office and assumed thereafter their respective elective positions, discharging since then the duties and functions thereof. This petition for certiorari was filed with this Court on March 12, 1980.
In several cases[18] arising from pre-proclamation controversies, this Court has spelled out the governing rule: A pre-proclamation case is no longer viable after the date of the election (January 30, 1980) if there was no pending petition before this Court as of saiddate and a proclamation of the winning candidete was thereafter made. The exception: where the questioned ruling was "issued by the Commission on Elections before the January 30, 1980 election" and the matter was "then elevated to this Court before such election, the issue thus presented should be resolved.[19] The instant case does not fall within the purview of said exception. Dismissal of the petition is thus warranted, without prejudice to appropriate proceedings being filed by the parties concerned in the proper forum so that there can be a full-dress hearing for the presentation of all relevant evidnce on the factual and legal aspects, with observance of procedural due process and with confrontation and examination of the witnesses, etc.
WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of appropriate proceedings in the proper forum, if desired by the parties concerned, within a period of ten (10) days from notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., see separate dissenting opinion.
Fernando, C.J., Aquino, Conception, Jr., Abad Santos, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., no part.
[1] dated March 1, 1980, Annex W, Petition; pp. 91-111, rollo.
[2] dated March 2, 1980, Annex Q, Petition; p. 84, id
[3] Dated March 2, 1980, Annex R, Petition; p. 85, id
[4] p. 43, id
[5] See Annex L, Petition, pp. 75-77, id; and Annex I, Answer of respondent Maglabe, pp. 214-235, id
[6] Annex R, Petition, supra.
[7] Page 19, rollo.
[8] pp. 109-111, rollo.
[9] 88 SCRA 251, 272; Sabeniano v. Comelec, 101 SCRA 289, 311.
[10] Sidro vs. Comelec, 123 SCRA 759, 762.
[11] Sec. 175, 1978 Election Code; Omar v. Comelec, 102 SCRA 611.
[12] Aratuc v. Comelec, supra, at p. 271.
[13] Lucman v. Dimaporo, 33 SCRA 387.
[14] Bashier v. Comelec, 43 SCRA 238.
[15] Lava v. Lopez Vito, 73 Phil. 390; Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288.
[16] 88 SCRA 251, 256.
[17] id, p. 255.
[18] Venezuela vs. Comelec, 98 SCRA 790; Villegas vs. Comelec, 99 SCRA 582; Arcenas vs. Comelec, 101 SCRA 437; Singco vs. Comelec, 101 SCRA 420; Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, 102 SCRA 1; Laguda vs. Comelec, 102 SCRA 857; Agcaoili vs. Comelec, 103 SCRA 350; Mitmug vs. Comelec, 103 SCRA 455; Jagunap vs. Comelec, 104 SCRA 204; Mogueis vs. Comelec, 104 SCRA 576; Faderanga vs. Comelec, 105 SCRA 123; Pasion vs. Comelec, 109 SCRA 238; Disini vs. Comelec, 119 SCRA 511; and Resurreccion vs. Comelec, 127 SCRA 1.
[19] See cases of Venezuela, Villegas, Arcenas, Singco, Aguinaldo, Pasion and Disini, supra, among others.
Petitioners Carlos Batino, Jr., Esteban Mendoza, Agapito Mendoza, Leovigildo Rafols, Cornelio Marzan, Regino Pangjulan and Marcial Dimapilis, together with herein respondent Benjamin Erni, were the Nacionalista Party (NP) candidtes in the 1980 local elections for Mayor of Tagaytay City, Vice-Mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of saidcity, respectively. Private respondents Hilario R. Maglabe, Jose Noel B. Benitez, Emmanuel P. Tolentino, Eufronio G. Erni and Jose A. Mojica, together with Ligaya Toledo, Tagumpay Reyes and Delia Bronquesa, were the respective standard bearers of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL).
Tagaytay City was listed by respondent Commission as one of the "problem areas" in the 1980 local elections. A special action team of the Commission was accordingly assigned to Tagaytay City which was placed under its direct control and supervision. The canvass of the votes cast was made by the City Board of Canvassers at the central office of the Commission, which canvass was terminated on February 20, 1980. On the said date, after completion of its canvass of 26 election returns (excluding those of Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19), the Board issued a unanimous ruling setting and the two election returns from said voting centers and elevating the matter to the respondent Commission for resolution. The Board made no proclamation of the winning candidates on the basis of the 26 election returns. The parties were, thereafter, required by the said Commission to submit their respective position papers.[5]
On March 1, 1980, the respondent Commission issued its questioned resolution wherein it "declared as spurious or manufactured" the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19, and excluded the two returns from the canvass of votes. The Commission also directed the board of canvassers to convene immediately and upon completion of the canvass to "proclaim the winners". The Commission issued an implementing Memorandum on March 2, 1980. As directed, the Board completed its canvass and thereafter announced the final results,[6] to wit:
In this petition for certiorari, it is claimed that "had the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19 been canvassed and not nullified by the respondent Honorable Commission, petitioners Carlos Batino, Jr. and Esteban Mendoza would have been … the duly elected City Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively, and their co-petitioners Agapito Mendoza and Leovigildo Rafols would have been the duly elected second and third members, respectively, of the Sanggunian instead of being the third and sixth members thereof" and petitioners Maraan, Panghulan and Dimapilis "would have been … the duly elected 4th, 5th and 6th members of the Sanggunian, respectively."[7]
Name of Candidtes Votes obtained Office of the Mayor 1. Hilarion R. Maglabe 3,116 (KBL) 2. Carlos B. Batino, Jr. 2,737 (NP) 3. Juan S. Napone 3 (IND) Office of the Vice-Mayor 1. Noel Benitez 3,070 (KBL) 2. Esteban Mendoza 2,675 (NP) Office of the Sangguniang Panglunsod 1. Benjamin Erni 2,726 (NP) 2. Emmanuel Tolentino 2,649 (KBL) 3. Agapito Mendoza 2,610 (NP) 4. Eufronio Erni 2,607 (KBL) 5. Jose Mojica 2,507 (KBL) 6. Leovigildo Rafols 2,480 (NP) 7. Ligaya Toledo 2,461 (KBL) 8. Tagumpay Reyes 2,440 (KBL) 9. Cornelio Maraan 2,425 (NP) 10. Delia D. Bronquesa 2,425 (NP) 11. Regino Panghulan 2,391 (NP) 12. Marcial Dimapilis 2,279 (NP) (party affiliation supplied)
The question raised by the petitioners for resolution is whether or not the respondent Commission gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The questioned resolution sets forth the findings and conclusions of the said Commission as follows:
"This Commission has taken into consideration the following circumstances in arriving at its finding that the election return for Voting Center No. 11 is spurious or manufactured: (1) The incidnt on January 18 and 19 when Mrs. Batino disrupted a conference of public school teachers with the Acting Election Registrar of Tagaytay, obviously sowing the seeds of fear psychologically among the public school teachers; (2) The intimidation made upon the members of the Comelec Special Action Team asking them to leave Tagaytay and let the intimidators alone; (3) The delay in the counting of the votes as reported by the Comelec Special Action Team, to await the trend in the other centers; (4) the issuance of the Certificate of Votes of candidates, dated January 30, 1980, when in fact, the counting was done only on January 31, 1980; (5) the use of five instruments of writing in the preparation of the election return, indicating that it was prepared by one who was not conversant with the nature of the paper on which the election return was printed; (6) the claim of Mrs. Concepcion Baybay, Chairman of the CEC that she didnot know of the characteristics of the chemically treated paper of the election return, when in fact she was a veteran member of the CEC, having served as chairman for the same Voting Center in 1978, all these indicating collusion either out of fear or volition with the perpetrators who manufactured the spurious election return; and (7) the other various election irregularities reported by the Comelec Special Action Team and the Acting Election Registrar of Tagaytay.In the case Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections, et al.,[9] it was pointed out inter alia, that "the certiorari jurisdiction" of this Court "over orders, rulings and decisions of the Comelec is not as broad as it used to be" and "should be confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process." Accordingly, We have "invariably followed" this principle: "in the absence of jurisdictional infirmity or error of law of the utmost gravity, the conclusion reached by respondent Commission on a matter that falls within its competence is entitled to utmost respect," as succinctly stated in the case of Sido[10] by the learned Chief Justice. And, according to the 1978 Election Code, the decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission in pre-proclamation controversies are "final and executory".[11]
"xxx xxx xxx
"With respect to the election return from Voting Center No. 19, the Commission rules that the large percentage of excess number of voters over the number of votes or ballots cast is evidence that it is a spurious or manufactured election return which does not reflect the true will of the voters.
"In this Voting Center No. 19, the election return states that: (1) the number or registered voters is 512; (2) the number voters who actually voted is 469; (3) number of ballots found in the compartment for validballots is 315; (4) 10 validballots were withdrawn from the compartment, for spoiled ballots, for having been mistakenly placed therein.
"From the above figures it is difficult to explain how the number of voters who actually voted is 469, when the number of validballots is 315 plus 10 (from the compartment for spoiled ballots) or a total of 325. There were 469 voters and yet there are only 325 validballots. It is either that 144 ballots were spirited out of the ballot box, or actually only 325 voted, but the number of votes has been increased to 469 to favor certain candidates. There is here 144 in excess of the validballots numbering 325, or 44.3% of the actual votes cast. This very large percentage points to but one logical conclusion: the election return from Voting Center No. 19 was prepared without regard to the ballots in the ballot box, in other words, spurious or manufactured."[8]
Besides, the petitioners' challenge is basically directed against the sufficiency of evidence considered and relied upon by the Commission. Their petition calls for a "digging into the merits and unearthing errors of judgment," which is not proper in certiorari proceedings.[12] As a rule, factual findings of the Commission cannot be reviewed by this Court[13] and are binding provided they are supported by substantial evidence.[14] After all, the Commission is in a "peculiarly advantageous position" to decide political controversies[15] or "better position to appreciate and assess the vital circumstances closely and accurately".[16] We may disagree with its findings and conclusions as to which voting center should be excluded, "but still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out" unless it is clearly shown that it acted "whimsically or capriciously or without any rational basis".[17]
As earlier noted, the matter passed upon by the respondent Commission was a pre-proclamation controversy over the exclusion of two election returns. Its decision was promulgated on March 1, 1980, or two months after the January 30, 1980 local election. Respondent Maglabe and the other private respondents were proclaimed the winning candidetes on March 2, 1980. They forthwith took their respective oaths of office and assumed thereafter their respective elective positions, discharging since then the duties and functions thereof. This petition for certiorari was filed with this Court on March 12, 1980.
In several cases[18] arising from pre-proclamation controversies, this Court has spelled out the governing rule: A pre-proclamation case is no longer viable after the date of the election (January 30, 1980) if there was no pending petition before this Court as of saiddate and a proclamation of the winning candidete was thereafter made. The exception: where the questioned ruling was "issued by the Commission on Elections before the January 30, 1980 election" and the matter was "then elevated to this Court before such election, the issue thus presented should be resolved.[19] The instant case does not fall within the purview of said exception. Dismissal of the petition is thus warranted, without prejudice to appropriate proceedings being filed by the parties concerned in the proper forum so that there can be a full-dress hearing for the presentation of all relevant evidnce on the factual and legal aspects, with observance of procedural due process and with confrontation and examination of the witnesses, etc.
WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of appropriate proceedings in the proper forum, if desired by the parties concerned, within a period of ten (10) days from notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., see separate dissenting opinion.
Fernando, C.J., Aquino, Conception, Jr., Abad Santos, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., no part.
[1] dated March 1, 1980, Annex W, Petition; pp. 91-111, rollo.
[2] dated March 2, 1980, Annex Q, Petition; p. 84, id
[3] Dated March 2, 1980, Annex R, Petition; p. 85, id
[4] p. 43, id
[5] See Annex L, Petition, pp. 75-77, id; and Annex I, Answer of respondent Maglabe, pp. 214-235, id
[6] Annex R, Petition, supra.
[7] Page 19, rollo.
[8] pp. 109-111, rollo.
[9] 88 SCRA 251, 272; Sabeniano v. Comelec, 101 SCRA 289, 311.
[10] Sidro vs. Comelec, 123 SCRA 759, 762.
[11] Sec. 175, 1978 Election Code; Omar v. Comelec, 102 SCRA 611.
[12] Aratuc v. Comelec, supra, at p. 271.
[13] Lucman v. Dimaporo, 33 SCRA 387.
[14] Bashier v. Comelec, 43 SCRA 238.
[15] Lava v. Lopez Vito, 73 Phil. 390; Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288.
[16] 88 SCRA 251, 256.
[17] id, p. 255.
[18] Venezuela vs. Comelec, 98 SCRA 790; Villegas vs. Comelec, 99 SCRA 582; Arcenas vs. Comelec, 101 SCRA 437; Singco vs. Comelec, 101 SCRA 420; Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, 102 SCRA 1; Laguda vs. Comelec, 102 SCRA 857; Agcaoili vs. Comelec, 103 SCRA 350; Mitmug vs. Comelec, 103 SCRA 455; Jagunap vs. Comelec, 104 SCRA 204; Mogueis vs. Comelec, 104 SCRA 576; Faderanga vs. Comelec, 105 SCRA 123; Pasion vs. Comelec, 109 SCRA 238; Disini vs. Comelec, 119 SCRA 511; and Resurreccion vs. Comelec, 127 SCRA 1.
[19] See cases of Venezuela, Villegas, Arcenas, Singco, Aguinaldo, Pasion and Disini, supra, among others.