Facts:

The case of Benjamin F. Arao vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Warlito Pulmones (G.R. No. 103877, June 23, 1992) centers around the local elections held in Pagadian City on January 18, 1988. Benjamin F. Arao was initially proclaimed the winner, having received 12,447 votes against Warlito Pulmones' 12,030 votes, giving Arao a margin of victory of 417 votes. Following this proclamation on January 21, 1988, Pulmones contested the results by filing an election protest with the COMELEC on January 28, citing widespread fraud and anomalies in several precincts. Arao subsequently filed a counterprotest, but it was dismissed due to the failure to pay the required filing fee within the regulatory timeframe. On February 15, 1988, Pulmones amended his protest to include additional precincts where alleged irregularities had occurred. A series of COMELEC decisions followed, initially declaring Arao the winner based on the First Division’s resolution in December 1991, but this was

...

Facts:

Election Contest and Canvassing

• Benjamin F. Arao and Warlito Pulmones were candidates for City Mayor of Pagadian City in the January 18, 1988, local elections.
• The official canvass showed that Arao garnered 12,447 votes while Pulmones obtained 12,030 votes, giving Arao an original lead of 417 votes.
• Arao was proclaimed City Mayor-elect on January 21, 1988 by the City Board of Canvassers.

Filing of Protests and Counterprotests

• On January 28, 1988, Pulmones filed his election protest with COMELEC alleging widespread fraud and anomalies, specifically highlighting irregularities in several districts and precincts of Pagadian City.
• The protest detailed irregularities in multiple precincts across districts such as Kawit, Tuburan, Bonifacio, Sta. Lucia, Sto. Nino, San Jose, San Pedro, Gatas, Balangasan, and included an unspecified Precinct 70.
• On February 15, 1988, Pulmones filed an Amended Protest, enumerating additional precincts not originally specified, though COMELEC later confined itself to the 45 precincts evidenced in the original protest.
• On February 8, 1988, Arao filed his Answer with Counterprotest. COMELEC (First Division) later dismissed the counterprotest on February 7, 1991 for failure to pay the required filing fee.

Proceedings on the Amended Protest and Subsequent Comments

• Despite the filing of an Amended Protest, on March 3, 1988, Arao submitted his Protestee’s Comments and Observations regarding the said Amended Protest, which were received by COMELEC on April 4, 1988.
• COMELEC (First Division) issued a resolution on February 7, 1991, disallowing the Protestee’s Comments by asserting that the Amended Protest had not been formally admitted, an issue later nuanced by subsequent orders.

COMELEC Resolutions and Revisions

• On December 11, 1991, COMELEC (First Division) issued a Resolution after revision of ballots and holding hearings wherein it:
• Noted that the Amended Protest was not formally admitted;
• Revised the margin of the election by declaring Pulmones, not Arao, as the winner – with a reduced margin of 378 votes (later En Banc adjusted to a 516-vote difference).
• Pulmones filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 16, 1991, prompting Arao to file his Memorandum in Opposition on January 15, 1992, where he raised several points regarding:
• The inclusion of ballots from precincts added in the Amended Protest;
• The invalidation of ballots allegedly on the ground of identical handwriting not questioned by Pulmones;
• Alleged procedural and evidentiary lapses, including the non-consideration of assisted illiterate or disabled voters’ ballots and statistical improbabilities.

COMELEC En Banc Decision and Post-Decision Developments

• On January 23, 1992, the COMELEC En Banc rendered its Decision by:
• Granting Pulmones’ Motion for Reconsideration;
• Denying Arao’s manifestation for the dismissal of the Motion for Reconsideration;
• Affirming the factual findings regarding the examination of contesting ballots;
• Declaring Pulmones as the duly elected Mayor with a margin of 516 votes;
• Ordering Arao to vacate his office immediately upon the decision becoming final and executory.
• Acting on this decision, COMELEC issued a writ of execution on February 28, 1992, and Arao subsequently filed an urgent motion for a writ of preliminary injunction on March 4, 1992.
• A temporary restraining order was issued by the Court on March 5, 1992 pending further comments.

Grounds for the Petition and Legal Framework Invoked

• Arao’s petition, filed as an original action for certiorari under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution, contended that COMELEC had:
• Invalidated 426 ballots from precincts not originally protested but introduced in the Amended Protest;
• Invalidated 466 ballots on the ground of identical handwriting, a rationale not raised by the protestant;
• Failed to clearly state the reasons for deeming certain ballots as having identical handwritings and other irregularities.
• The petitioner’s contentions were positioned within the jurisprudential context of whether COMELEC’s decisions amounted to a grave abuse of discretion or an excess of jurisdiction, concepts that are strictly reviewable under the specific doctrine of certiorari.

Contextual and Precedential Considerations

• The petition and the issues raised were underscored by a series of precedents (e.g., Padilla vs. COMELEC, Sidro v. COMELEC, Yalung v. Atienza, and Lucero vs. De Guzman) which elaborate on the limited judicial review of COMELEC’s findings and the narrow scope of certiorari.
• These cases emphasize that factual findings by COMELEC, in the absence of a grave and patent abuse of discretion or a substantial denial of due process, are not readily interfered with by the courts.

Issue:

Whether respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the challenged decision, particularly in:

• Invalidating 426 of Arao’s ballots from precincts added solely via the Amended Protest.
• Disallowing 466 ballots based on alleged identical handwriting, an issue not raised by the protestant Pulmones.
• Failing to articulate specific and sufficient grounds for rejecting certain ballots that exhibited differing characteristics (marked, unmarked, or stray handwriting).

• Whether Arao’s delay and failure to timely raise these issues (or to seek reconsideration through appropriate COMELEC motions) resulted in a waiver of his right to question the COMELEC decision.

• Whether the public interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process and the commission’s extensive discretion in resolving ballot irregularities justify the decisions taken, even if procedural lapses occurred.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)