EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 186359, March 05, 2010 ]
JESUS O. TYPOCO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LABO, CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATTY. RAFFY OLANO; THE NEW PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATTY. ALLEN
FRANCIS B. ABAYA; AND EDGARDO A. TALLADO, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
In Tan v. Commission on Elections[1] (COMELEC), this Court emphasized that the factual findings of the poll body, which has the expertise in the enforcement and administration of all election laws and regulations, are binding on
this Court and must be respected because this Court is not a trier of facts[2] and is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of factual allegations.[3] While this principle may admit of rare exceptions, it should
apply with full force to the instant case.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the April 30, 2008 Resolution[4] of the COMELEC First Division and the February 24, 2009 Resolution[5] of the COMELEC en banc.
The relevant antecedent facts and proceedings follow.
In the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, petitioner and private respondent vied for the position of Governor in Camarines Norte. After the counting and canvassing of votes, petitioner Jesus O. Typoco was proclaimed winner with 80,830 votes, as opposed to respondent Edgardo A. Tallado's 78,287 votes.[6]
Respondent Tallado filed before the COMELEC a petition for correction of manifest error, docketed as SPC No. 07-312. He claimed that, after he reviewed and examined the figures in the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) vis-à-vis the Certificate of Canvass of Votes (COC) in the municipalities in the province, he found that, in the municipalities of Labo and Jose Panganiban, errors were committed in the transposition of votes from the SOVP to the COC. In Labo, the SOVP revealed that respondent Tallado's votes were 13,174 but when the figure was transferred to the COC, it was reduced to 11,490; whereas petitioner Typoco's votes were increased from 11,359 to 12,285. In Jose Panganiban, respondent Tallado's votes, per the SOVP, totaled 6,186; the same, however, was reduced to 5,460 when transposed to the COC. Respondent contended that if the errors were corrected, he would obtain a total of 80,697 votes and petitioner, 79,904 votes; thus, he would be the true winner in the gubernatorial race in the province.[7]
In his Answer,[8] petitioner asserted that respondent belatedly filed his petition for correction of manifest error and was guilty of forum shopping. Petitioner further countered that the SOVPs submitted by respondent were fake and obviously manufactured. Petitioner thus sought the dismissal of SPC No. 07-312.
After due proceedings, the COMELEC First Division, on April 30, 2008, rendered the assailed Resolution[9] granting respondent Tallado's petition. It ruled that, based on the COMELEC copies (in the custody of the Election Records and Statistics Division [ERSD] of the Commission) of the concerned SOVPs and COCs, the votes in Labo, as recorded in the said documents, did not correspond; while those in Jose Panganiban actually tallied. Correcting the figures in Labo, while retaining those in the latter municipality, led to the following results: Tallado, 79,969 votes; and Typoco, 79,904 votes. The First Division then disposed of the case as follows:
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration.[11] The motion was, however, denied by the COMELEC en banc in the further assailed February 24, 2009 Resolution.[12]
Consequently, petitioner filed, on March 2, 2009, the instant petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court to annul the aforesaid resolutions of the COMELEC. Apprehensive that the resolutions would be implemented, petitioner prayed for the issuance of an injunctive relief.[13]
On the same date, the COMELEC en banc issued an Order,[14] appointing the members of a new municipal board of canvassers in the subject locality and members of a new provincial board of canvassers for purposes of, respectively, tabulating the votes for Governor for the municipality of Labo, and proclaiming respondent. The dispositive portion of the March 2, 2009 Order reads:
Significantly, the COMELEC, in the said March 2, 2009 Order, endorsed the case to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for proper investigation, in view of petitioner's serious allegations that the pertinent election documents in the custody of the COMELEC were fake and spurious, and that COMELEC records were substituted in connivance with someone from the Commission.[16] The obvious intent of this endorsement was to utilize the NBI findings as basis for appropriate action against those who perpetrated the alleged fraud if, indeed, fraud had been committed. Parenthetically, Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented from the majority opinion in the March 2, 2009 Order.[17]
On March 4, 2009, petitioner filed with this Court his Urgent Motion Reiterating the Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Motion for Leave of Court to Implead Necessary Parties and to Set for Oral Arguments,[18] principally to stop the implementation of the aforesaid March 2, 2009 Order, and the earlier assailed resolutions of the COMELEC.
Finding merit in petitioner's urgent motion, the Court, on March 5, 2009, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) for the concerned parties to cease and desist from implementing the April 30, 2008 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division, the February 24, 2009 Resolution and the March 2, 2009 Order of the COMELEC en banc.[19]
On June 9, 2009, petitioner filed his Motion for Leave of Court to File the Herein Incorporated Supplemental Arguments,[20] attaching thereto a copy of the May 22, 2009 Progress Report[21] of the NBI. Petitioner contends in his motion that the NBI found the SOVPs in the possession of COMELEC to be spurious. On July 20, 2009, petitioner again moved for leave to incorporate his second supplemental arguments, attaching thereto the July 16, 2009 Final Report[22] of the NBI. Apparently, the NBI conducted an investigation pursuant to the March 2, 2009 Order of the COMELEC en banc, despite this Court's issuance of a TRO.
Given these antecedents, the Court in the instant certiorari petition must resolve whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its issuances ordering: (1) the correction of the manifest error in the pertinent election documents; (2) the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner; and (3) the subsequent proclamation of the winning gubernatorial candidate in Camarines Norte.
The Court finds that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
In a special civil action for certiorari, the burden rests on petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent issuing the impugned order, decision or resolution.[23] "Grave abuse of discretion" is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.[24] It must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[25] "Grave abuse of discretion" arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.[26]
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]
These matters considered, the Court agrees with the following discourse of the COMELEC First Division:
Nevertheless, petitioner contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided the controversy based on the ERSD copies of the SOVP. In effect, petitioner argues that the poll body erred in its factual findings.
The Court does not find merit in petitioner's argument. As stated at the outset, the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. The findings of fact of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and nonreviewable by courts of justice.[32] This principle is applied with greater force when the case concerns the COMELEC, because the framers of the Constitution intended to place the poll body--created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself--on a level higher than statutory administrative organs.[33]
To repeat, the Court is not a trier of facts. The Court's function, as mandated by the Constitution, is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it simply erred or has a different view.[34] Time and again, the Court has held that a petition for certiorari against actions of the COMELEC is confined only to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process, because the COMELEC is presumed to be most competent in matters falling within its domain.[35]
In this case, the COMELEC's decision to correct the manifest error is supported by substantial evidence. The COMELEC copies of the SOVP (in the custody of the ERSD) revealed discrepancies in the transposition of the votes from the said documents to the COC. It may be noted that the COMELEC used its own copies of the SOVP, not the copies provided by the parties. Prudence dictated that COMELEC should utilize its own copies, those in its custody, to dispel any doubt as to the integrity of the election documents.
The decision of the COMELEC--to correct the manifest errors based on its own copies of the election documents involved--cannot be hastily set aside by this Court on petitioner's bare allegation that the COMELEC (ERSD) copies are fake or spurious and have found their way to the COMELEC records anomalously. Let it be remembered that, as posited by petitioner himself, only the COMELEC, not even the NBI, has the competence to determine the authenticity of election documents, because the COMELEC is the only entity which knows the security features or secret markings of the said documents.[36] When it decided to use its own copies of the SOVP, therefore, it considered those copies as authentic or genuine, and reflective of the true will of the electorate of Camarines Norte. This act of the COMELEC enjoys the presumption of regularity. Further, since the said factual finding was made by an entity having expertise in the field, the same is binding[37] and cannot be peremptorily brushed aside by this Court.
Petitioner asserts that the COMELEC (ERSD) copies of the SOVP were found by the NBI to be spurious. Petitioner thus wants this Court to accept the NBI reports[38] without hesitation and to disregard the COMELEC findings.
The Court finds petitioner's reliance on the NBI reports misplaced. As stated earlier, the COMELEC, not the NBI, is the agency that has the competence to determine the genuineness of election documents. This proposition is supported by no less than petitioner himself. Commissioner Sarmiento also echoed the same sentiment when he expressed his dissent[39] to the referral of the case to the NBI for investigation in the March 2, 2009 Order; thus, he fittingly declared "[t]he issue involves election documents and there is no other body more competent in handling these documents than the COMELEC."
Incidentally, when the COMELEC referred the matter to the NBI, the main issue of manifest error was already resolved. The referral was only for the purpose of "determining criminal acts of falsification or interference with electoral processes"[40] and only in response to petitioner's "damning indictment [of fraud and irregularity] that impinges on the very credibility of the COMELEC."[41] In other words, the referral was not intended to aid the COMELEC, or to be used as conclusive evidence in the resolution of the petition for correction of manifest error, precisely because that issue had already been resolved and because the COMELEC has the sole competence to determine the authenticity of the concerned election documents. In view of this, the Court cannot use the NBI reports in its determination of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions and orders.
Another reason that compels this Court to disregard the NBI report is the fact that the NBI investigation was undertaken in violation of the Court's order. The referral to the NBI was made by the COMELEC in its March 2, 2009 Order. The Court, in the March 5, 2009 TRO, expressly ordered the concerned parties to cease and desist from implementing this March 2, 2009 Order. When the case was referred by the COMELEC to the NBI, and when the NBI conducted the investigation, this Court's restraining order was already effective and in force. Both agencies, therefore, disobeyed the express order of this Court. Being the product of an act of disobedience to this Court's order, the NBI investigation and the report cannot be made the basis of this Court's resolution of the case.
Finally, the Court does not find merit in petitioner's contention that a recanvass of the election returns (ERs) should be undertaken in order to truly determine the mandate of the electorate. Let it be noted that the original petition filed before the COMELEC, one for correction of manifest errors, was a pre-proclamation controversy which, ordinarily, does not involve the opening of ballot boxes or the examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns. Furthermore, the ERs were never introduced in evidence in the proceedings below. Evidently, there is no basis for this Court to conduct a retabulation of ERs. Also, as correctly stated by the Office of the Solicitor General, "the remedy of recanvass of [ERs] is patently illegal, as this would take the form of an election protest, particularly a retabulation of [ERs] under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC."[42]
If the Court were to tabulate the results reflected in the ERs, it would, in effect, convert itself into a board of canvassers. This would entail a function which, obviously, this Court, in a petition for certiorari, cannot perform.
In sum, the petition must, of necessity, fail.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Corona, Carpio Morales, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., no part, due to relation to a party.
Velasco, Jr., please see dissenting opinion.
Peralta, J., on offficial leave.
Del Castillo, J., join the dissent of J. Velasco Jr.
[1] G.R. Nos. 166143-47 and 166891, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 352, 380.
[2] Juan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166639, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 119, 128.
[3] Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 341 (2001).
[4] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Romeo A. Brawner (deceased), with Commissioner Moslemen T. Macarambon, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-44.
[5] Penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer, with Chairman Jose A.R. Melo, Commissioners Leonardo L. Leonida, Lucenito N. Tagle, and Armando C. Velasco, concurring; and Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, dissenting; id. at 45-83.
[6] Rollo, p. 40.
[7] Id. at 104-112.
[8] Id. at 120-133.
[9] Supra note 4.
[10] Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[11] Id. at 84.
[12] Supra note 5.
[13] Rollo, pp. 26-28.
[14] Id. at 253-263.
[15] Id. at 259-260.
[16] Id. at 222-223.
[17] Id. at 261-263.
[18] Id. at 244-252.
[19] Id. at 238-240.
[20] Id. at 438-442.
[21] Id. at 443-459.
[22] Id. at 571-627.
[23] Suliguin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166046, March 23, 2006, 485 SCRA 219, 233.
[24] Guerrero v. COMELEC, 391 Phil. 344, 352 (2000).
[25] Sen. Defensor Santiago v. Sen. Guingona, Jr., 359 Phil. 276, 304 (1998).
[26] Cabrera v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182084, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 686, 691.
[27] Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, G.R. No. 151216, July 18, 2003, 406 SCRA 679, 684.
[28] Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, 312 Phil. 316, 336 (1995).
[29] Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 86645, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 849, 856.
[30] Id. at 858.
[31] Rollo, pp. 38-41.
[32] Idulza v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 160130, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 701, 707-708.
[33] Japzon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 331, 350.
[34] V.C. Cadangen v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177179, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 738, 745-746.
[35] Japzon v. Commission on Elections, supra note 33.
[36] Rollo, p. 247.
[37] Alejandro v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 167101, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 427, 445.
[38] Rollo, pp. 443-459, 571-627.
[39] Id. at 261-263.
[40] Id. at 258.
[41] Id.
[42] Id. at 332.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the April 30, 2008 Resolution[4] of the COMELEC First Division and the February 24, 2009 Resolution[5] of the COMELEC en banc.
The relevant antecedent facts and proceedings follow.
In the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, petitioner and private respondent vied for the position of Governor in Camarines Norte. After the counting and canvassing of votes, petitioner Jesus O. Typoco was proclaimed winner with 80,830 votes, as opposed to respondent Edgardo A. Tallado's 78,287 votes.[6]
Respondent Tallado filed before the COMELEC a petition for correction of manifest error, docketed as SPC No. 07-312. He claimed that, after he reviewed and examined the figures in the Statement of Votes by Precinct (SOVP) vis-à-vis the Certificate of Canvass of Votes (COC) in the municipalities in the province, he found that, in the municipalities of Labo and Jose Panganiban, errors were committed in the transposition of votes from the SOVP to the COC. In Labo, the SOVP revealed that respondent Tallado's votes were 13,174 but when the figure was transferred to the COC, it was reduced to 11,490; whereas petitioner Typoco's votes were increased from 11,359 to 12,285. In Jose Panganiban, respondent Tallado's votes, per the SOVP, totaled 6,186; the same, however, was reduced to 5,460 when transposed to the COC. Respondent contended that if the errors were corrected, he would obtain a total of 80,697 votes and petitioner, 79,904 votes; thus, he would be the true winner in the gubernatorial race in the province.[7]
In his Answer,[8] petitioner asserted that respondent belatedly filed his petition for correction of manifest error and was guilty of forum shopping. Petitioner further countered that the SOVPs submitted by respondent were fake and obviously manufactured. Petitioner thus sought the dismissal of SPC No. 07-312.
After due proceedings, the COMELEC First Division, on April 30, 2008, rendered the assailed Resolution[9] granting respondent Tallado's petition. It ruled that, based on the COMELEC copies (in the custody of the Election Records and Statistics Division [ERSD] of the Commission) of the concerned SOVPs and COCs, the votes in Labo, as recorded in the said documents, did not correspond; while those in Jose Panganiban actually tallied. Correcting the figures in Labo, while retaining those in the latter municipality, led to the following results: Tallado, 79,969 votes; and Typoco, 79,904 votes. The First Division then disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby partially GRANTED. The proclamation of private respondent Jesus Typoco as the winning gubernatorial candidate is hereby ANNULLED. Consequently, a New Municipal Board of Canvassers for the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte and a New Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Camarines Norte shall hereby be constituted.
The New Municipal Board of Canvassers for the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte is hereby DIRECTED to: 1. CONVENE at the Session Hall of the Main Office of the Commission on Elections in Manila; and, 2. CORRECT the manifest error found in the Municipal Certificate of Canvass of Votes of the Municipality of Labo to reflect therein the actual number of votes of petitioner and private respondent as recorded in the Comelec copy of the Statement of Votes by Precinct of the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte; 3. SUBMIT to the New Provincial Board of Canvassers the corrected Municipal Certificate of Canvass of Votes for the gubernatorial position, with its corresponding Statement of Votes and Summary Statement of Votes.
The New Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Camarines Norte is also DIRECTED to: 1. CONVENE, at the same time as the New MBOC, at the Session Hall of the Main Office of the Commission on Elections in Manila; 2. RECEIVE from the New MBOC of Labo the corrected Municipal Certificate of Canvass of Votes for the gubernatorial position from the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte; 3. AMEND the Statement of Votes by City/Municipality for the Province of Camarines Norte reflecting therein the actual number of votes of the gubernatorial candidates as corrected in the Municipal Certificate of Canvass of Votes for the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte; 4. AMEND the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation for the Province of Camarines Norte; and 5. PROCLAIM Edgardo A. Tallado as the winning gubernatorial candidate for the Province of Camarines Norte.
The Law Department is also DIRECTED to immediately conduct the investigation of the Chairmen and Members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Camarines Norte and the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Labo and Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte and other individuals of their possible involvement in the commission of electoral sabotage or any other election offense in the handling of the SOVP in the Municipality of Labo and Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration.[11] The motion was, however, denied by the COMELEC en banc in the further assailed February 24, 2009 Resolution.[12]
Consequently, petitioner filed, on March 2, 2009, the instant petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court to annul the aforesaid resolutions of the COMELEC. Apprehensive that the resolutions would be implemented, petitioner prayed for the issuance of an injunctive relief.[13]
On the same date, the COMELEC en banc issued an Order,[14] appointing the members of a new municipal board of canvassers in the subject locality and members of a new provincial board of canvassers for purposes of, respectively, tabulating the votes for Governor for the municipality of Labo, and proclaiming respondent. The dispositive portion of the March 2, 2009 Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission en banc RESOLVED to, as it hereby RESOLVES to, DENY the prayer of Private Respondent Jesus Typoco for admission of exhibits "1" to "8-G" for the specific purposes mentioned in the Memorandum.
Consequently, relative to our February 24, 2009 Resolution, and in order to expedite proceedings with (sic) speedily and judiciously, the Commission en banc accordingly names and appoints the following members of the New Municipal Board of Canvassers (NMBOC) for Labo, Camarines Norte: Atty. Raffy Olano (Chairman); Atty. John Rex Laudiangco (Vice Chairman); and Atty. Norie Tangaro-Casingal (Secretary), which must hereafter convene at COMELEC session hall in Intramuros, Manila within three (3) days from receipt of this Order, re-tabulate the votes for the position of Governor of Camarines Norte, prepare a new SVOP and MCOC for the municipality of Labo with the corrections, and thereafter submit the same to the New Provincial Board of Canvassers (NPBOC) of Camarines Norte.
The following are likewise named and appointed to the New Provincial Board of Canvassers of Camarines Norte and performed (sic) duties as follows: Atty. Allen Francis B. Abaya (Chairman); Atty. Manuel Lucero (Vice Chairman); and Fritzie Claire Casino (Secretary). The same NPBOC shall convene at COMELEC session hall in Intramuros, Manila within three (3) days from receipt of this Order, prepare a new Statement of Votes per Municipality (SVOM) and Provincial Canvass of Votes (PCOC) as corrected, and thereafter proclaim Edgardo Tallado as the duly elected governor of the province of Camarines Norte in the May 14, 2007 elections.
Further, the Commission en banc hereby endorses this matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for proper investigation, the results of which would be material to any further action that may be taken against any such responsible parties who may be found liable for any of the fraudulent acts alleged by the Private Respondent Typoco. For this same purpose, the NBI is hereby directed to coordinate with the COMELEC Law Department and Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal to expedite this investigation.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Significantly, the COMELEC, in the said March 2, 2009 Order, endorsed the case to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for proper investigation, in view of petitioner's serious allegations that the pertinent election documents in the custody of the COMELEC were fake and spurious, and that COMELEC records were substituted in connivance with someone from the Commission.[16] The obvious intent of this endorsement was to utilize the NBI findings as basis for appropriate action against those who perpetrated the alleged fraud if, indeed, fraud had been committed. Parenthetically, Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented from the majority opinion in the March 2, 2009 Order.[17]
On March 4, 2009, petitioner filed with this Court his Urgent Motion Reiterating the Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Motion for Leave of Court to Implead Necessary Parties and to Set for Oral Arguments,[18] principally to stop the implementation of the aforesaid March 2, 2009 Order, and the earlier assailed resolutions of the COMELEC.
Finding merit in petitioner's urgent motion, the Court, on March 5, 2009, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) for the concerned parties to cease and desist from implementing the April 30, 2008 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division, the February 24, 2009 Resolution and the March 2, 2009 Order of the COMELEC en banc.[19]
On June 9, 2009, petitioner filed his Motion for Leave of Court to File the Herein Incorporated Supplemental Arguments,[20] attaching thereto a copy of the May 22, 2009 Progress Report[21] of the NBI. Petitioner contends in his motion that the NBI found the SOVPs in the possession of COMELEC to be spurious. On July 20, 2009, petitioner again moved for leave to incorporate his second supplemental arguments, attaching thereto the July 16, 2009 Final Report[22] of the NBI. Apparently, the NBI conducted an investigation pursuant to the March 2, 2009 Order of the COMELEC en banc, despite this Court's issuance of a TRO.
Given these antecedents, the Court in the instant certiorari petition must resolve whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its issuances ordering: (1) the correction of the manifest error in the pertinent election documents; (2) the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner; and (3) the subsequent proclamation of the winning gubernatorial candidate in Camarines Norte.
The Court finds that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
In a special civil action for certiorari, the burden rests on petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent issuing the impugned order, decision or resolution.[23] "Grave abuse of discretion" is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or excess thereof.[24] It must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[25] "Grave abuse of discretion" arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence.[26]
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]
These matters considered, the Court agrees with the following discourse of the COMELEC First Division:
After a thorough review of the ERSD copy of the Labo SOVP we have the following findings: the ERSD copy is a carbon copy of the SOVP submitted by Petitioner. In the ERSD copy of the SOVP petitioner received a total of Thirteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Two (13,172), while private respondent received only Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Nine (11,359) votes. Curiously, these figures did not find its way to the Summary SOV and the Municipal COC which are attached in the ERSD copy of the SOVP. The Summary SOV and the Municipal COC shows that petitioner's total number of votes in Labo is Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Ninety (11,490) votes while that of private respondent is Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Five (12,285) votes. Clearly, therefore, even in the ERSD copy of the SOVP there is manifest error in the transposition of the votes of petitioner from the SOVP to the Summary SOV and the Municipal COC. And between the Municipal COC and the SOVP, the SOVP should take precedence since the Municipal COC simply takes its figures from those recorded in the SOVP.
In the case of the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, however, it is the SOVP submitted by private respondent (MBOC copy) which tallied with the figures found in the ERSD copy of the SOVP. Furthermore, the ERSD copy of the SOVP corresponds with the figures as found in the ERSD copy of the Municipal COC. There is, therefore, no manifest error as far as the ERSD copies of the SOVP and Municipal COC are concerned.
There are, however, some discrepancy between the MBOC copy and the ERSD copy. Some of the corrections found in the MBOC copy were made differently in the ERSD copy such as the presence of counter-signatures in one copy and none in the other, as well as the difference in style in the corrections found in the two SOVPs.
However, despite the minor inconsistencies found in the SOVP submitted by private respondent and the ERSD copy, petitioner did not raise any objections as regards these inconsistencies. In his memorandum, petitioner even nonchalantly argued that:
"In so far as the SOVs of Jose Panganiban which Comelec Manila furnished petitioner, the latter in Jose Panganiban received a vote of 5,460 while respondent Typoco received a vote of 7,741. Reconciling all the votes for Governor in the 12 municipalities of Camarines Norte and without anymore questioning [those] coming from Jose Panganiban as furnished to petitioner by Comelec Manila, it glaringly appears that petitioner Tallado won over res[p]ondent Typoco by a majority of 65 votes as shown by herein tabulation."
Considering that no objections have been raised against the SOVPs submitted to the Commission, under the custody of the ERSD, and that based on the principle that there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in the receipt, custody and safekeeping of the SOVP with the ERSD, it is therefore reasonable to consider that the votes of the parties as found in the ERSD copies of the contended SOVPs shall prevail.
Considering the above discussion, we, therefore, deny petitioner's petition to correct manifest error as far as the Municipal COC in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban is concerned. This ruling is justified by the fact that the number of votes found in the Municipal COC matched that of the figures found in the ERSD copy of the SOVP. There is, therefore, no need to disturb the votes of the contending parties as far as their votes from the Municipality of Panganiban is concerned.
We grant, however, petitioner's prayer to correct manifest error found in the Municipal COC in the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte as the votes of both petitioner and private respondent as recorded in the SOVP do not correspond with their number of votes in the Municipal COC. Such discrepancy was clearly established in the ERSD copies of the SOVP and the Municipal COC of the Municipality of Labo.
During the proclamation, the number of votes of the contending parties are shown in the table below with private respondent garnering the winning votes with eighty thousand eight hundred and thirty (80,830) votes, while petitioner received only seventy eight thousand two hundred and eighty seven (78,287) votes.
While the grant of the petition to correct manifest error in the Municipal COC of the Municipality of Labo and as supported by the figures found in the Comelec/ERSD copy of the SOVP, the votes received by the two contending gubernatorial candidates have changed substantially. These corrected figures are shown in the table below. Please note that the votes from Labo have been corrected while that of Jose Panganiban remains the same.
Taking into consideration the corrected figures, it is shown that petitioner Tallado apparently received Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Nine votes (79,969), while private respondent Typoco garnered a total of Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Four votes (79,904) giving petitioner Tallado a winning margin of Sixty-Five (65) votes.
Correspondingly, we also rule that in the light of the erroneous computation of the votes of petitioner Tallado and private respondent Typoco, the latter was erroneously proclaimed as the winning gubernatorial candidate. Such proclamation is, therefore, null and void. Corollary to this, the present petition for the correction of manifest error falls within the exception that the same can be filed beyond the five (5) day reglamentary period since the proclamation is based on an erroneous tabulation of votes, and therefore, null and void.
Apparently, as far as the Municipality of Labo is concerned, there is a clear manifestation that fake, spurious and manufactured Municipal Certificate of Canvass was used in the canvassing of the gubernatorial votes. A conspiracy has been committed to reduce the votes of Petitioner and to increase the votes of Private Respondent Typoco. This might be a case of electoral sabotage.[31]
Nevertheless, petitioner contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided the controversy based on the ERSD copies of the SOVP. In effect, petitioner argues that the poll body erred in its factual findings.
The Court does not find merit in petitioner's argument. As stated at the outset, the appreciation of election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. The findings of fact of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are final and nonreviewable by courts of justice.[32] This principle is applied with greater force when the case concerns the COMELEC, because the framers of the Constitution intended to place the poll body--created and explicitly made independent by the Constitution itself--on a level higher than statutory administrative organs.[33]
To repeat, the Court is not a trier of facts. The Court's function, as mandated by the Constitution, is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it simply erred or has a different view.[34] Time and again, the Court has held that a petition for certiorari against actions of the COMELEC is confined only to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process, because the COMELEC is presumed to be most competent in matters falling within its domain.[35]
In this case, the COMELEC's decision to correct the manifest error is supported by substantial evidence. The COMELEC copies of the SOVP (in the custody of the ERSD) revealed discrepancies in the transposition of the votes from the said documents to the COC. It may be noted that the COMELEC used its own copies of the SOVP, not the copies provided by the parties. Prudence dictated that COMELEC should utilize its own copies, those in its custody, to dispel any doubt as to the integrity of the election documents.
The decision of the COMELEC--to correct the manifest errors based on its own copies of the election documents involved--cannot be hastily set aside by this Court on petitioner's bare allegation that the COMELEC (ERSD) copies are fake or spurious and have found their way to the COMELEC records anomalously. Let it be remembered that, as posited by petitioner himself, only the COMELEC, not even the NBI, has the competence to determine the authenticity of election documents, because the COMELEC is the only entity which knows the security features or secret markings of the said documents.[36] When it decided to use its own copies of the SOVP, therefore, it considered those copies as authentic or genuine, and reflective of the true will of the electorate of Camarines Norte. This act of the COMELEC enjoys the presumption of regularity. Further, since the said factual finding was made by an entity having expertise in the field, the same is binding[37] and cannot be peremptorily brushed aside by this Court.
Petitioner asserts that the COMELEC (ERSD) copies of the SOVP were found by the NBI to be spurious. Petitioner thus wants this Court to accept the NBI reports[38] without hesitation and to disregard the COMELEC findings.
The Court finds petitioner's reliance on the NBI reports misplaced. As stated earlier, the COMELEC, not the NBI, is the agency that has the competence to determine the genuineness of election documents. This proposition is supported by no less than petitioner himself. Commissioner Sarmiento also echoed the same sentiment when he expressed his dissent[39] to the referral of the case to the NBI for investigation in the March 2, 2009 Order; thus, he fittingly declared "[t]he issue involves election documents and there is no other body more competent in handling these documents than the COMELEC."
Incidentally, when the COMELEC referred the matter to the NBI, the main issue of manifest error was already resolved. The referral was only for the purpose of "determining criminal acts of falsification or interference with electoral processes"[40] and only in response to petitioner's "damning indictment [of fraud and irregularity] that impinges on the very credibility of the COMELEC."[41] In other words, the referral was not intended to aid the COMELEC, or to be used as conclusive evidence in the resolution of the petition for correction of manifest error, precisely because that issue had already been resolved and because the COMELEC has the sole competence to determine the authenticity of the concerned election documents. In view of this, the Court cannot use the NBI reports in its determination of whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions and orders.
Another reason that compels this Court to disregard the NBI report is the fact that the NBI investigation was undertaken in violation of the Court's order. The referral to the NBI was made by the COMELEC in its March 2, 2009 Order. The Court, in the March 5, 2009 TRO, expressly ordered the concerned parties to cease and desist from implementing this March 2, 2009 Order. When the case was referred by the COMELEC to the NBI, and when the NBI conducted the investigation, this Court's restraining order was already effective and in force. Both agencies, therefore, disobeyed the express order of this Court. Being the product of an act of disobedience to this Court's order, the NBI investigation and the report cannot be made the basis of this Court's resolution of the case.
Finally, the Court does not find merit in petitioner's contention that a recanvass of the election returns (ERs) should be undertaken in order to truly determine the mandate of the electorate. Let it be noted that the original petition filed before the COMELEC, one for correction of manifest errors, was a pre-proclamation controversy which, ordinarily, does not involve the opening of ballot boxes or the examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns. Furthermore, the ERs were never introduced in evidence in the proceedings below. Evidently, there is no basis for this Court to conduct a retabulation of ERs. Also, as correctly stated by the Office of the Solicitor General, "the remedy of recanvass of [ERs] is patently illegal, as this would take the form of an election protest, particularly a retabulation of [ERs] under A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC."[42]
If the Court were to tabulate the results reflected in the ERs, it would, in effect, convert itself into a board of canvassers. This would entail a function which, obviously, this Court, in a petition for certiorari, cannot perform.
In sum, the petition must, of necessity, fail.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Corona, Carpio Morales, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., no part, due to relation to a party.
Velasco, Jr., please see dissenting opinion.
Peralta, J., on offficial leave.
Del Castillo, J., join the dissent of J. Velasco Jr.
[1] G.R. Nos. 166143-47 and 166891, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 352, 380.
[2] Juan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166639, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 119, 128.
[3] Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, 412 Phil. 308, 341 (2001).
[4] Penned by Presiding Commissioner Romeo A. Brawner (deceased), with Commissioner Moslemen T. Macarambon, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-44.
[5] Penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer, with Chairman Jose A.R. Melo, Commissioners Leonardo L. Leonida, Lucenito N. Tagle, and Armando C. Velasco, concurring; and Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, dissenting; id. at 45-83.
[6] Rollo, p. 40.
[7] Id. at 104-112.
[8] Id. at 120-133.
[9] Supra note 4.
[10] Rollo, pp. 42-43.
[11] Id. at 84.
[12] Supra note 5.
[13] Rollo, pp. 26-28.
[14] Id. at 253-263.
[15] Id. at 259-260.
[16] Id. at 222-223.
[17] Id. at 261-263.
[18] Id. at 244-252.
[19] Id. at 238-240.
[20] Id. at 438-442.
[21] Id. at 443-459.
[22] Id. at 571-627.
[23] Suliguin v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 166046, March 23, 2006, 485 SCRA 219, 233.
[24] Guerrero v. COMELEC, 391 Phil. 344, 352 (2000).
[25] Sen. Defensor Santiago v. Sen. Guingona, Jr., 359 Phil. 276, 304 (1998).
[26] Cabrera v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182084, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 686, 691.
[27] Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, G.R. No. 151216, July 18, 2003, 406 SCRA 679, 684.
[28] Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, 312 Phil. 316, 336 (1995).
[29] Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 86645, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 849, 856.
[30] Id. at 858.
[31] Rollo, pp. 38-41.
[32] Idulza v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 160130, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 701, 707-708.
[33] Japzon v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 331, 350.
[34] V.C. Cadangen v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177179, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 738, 745-746.
[35] Japzon v. Commission on Elections, supra note 33.
[36] Rollo, p. 247.
[37] Alejandro v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 167101, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 427, 445.
[38] Rollo, pp. 443-459, 571-627.
[39] Id. at 261-263.
[40] Id. at 258.
[41] Id.
[42] Id. at 332.