Title
Bince, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 106291
Decision Date
Feb 9, 1993
COMELEC annulled Bince’s proclamation without due process; corrections to SOVs/COCs invalid. SC ruled in favor of Bince, citing jurisdictional errors and procedural violations.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 106291)

Facts:

Elections and Proclamation:
Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr., and private respondent Emiliano Micu were candidates in the 1992 synchronized elections for two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan’s Sixth Legislative District. The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) conducted the canvassing of votes, during which Micu contested the Certificate of Canvass (COC) for San Quintin. The COMELEC resolved the appeal, ordering the PBC to credit Micu with 1,535 votes and Bince with 1,055 votes in San Quintin.

Correction of Votes:
Twenty-one days later, Micu and the Municipal Boards of Canvassers (MBCs) of Tayug and San Manuel filed petitions to correct the Statements of Votes (SOVs) in their municipalities, citing manifest errors in addition. The PBC allowed the corrections, resulting in changes to the vote totals for both candidates.

Proclamation and Annulment:
On July 21, 1992, the PBC proclaimed Bince as the second winning candidate with a one-vote lead over Micu. Micu filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt and to Annul Proclamation, alleging the PBC defied COMELEC’s order to reconvene and consider the corrected COCs. The COMELEC, without notice or hearing, annulled Bince’s proclamation and ordered the PBC to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidate based on the corrected COCs. Consequently, Micu was proclaimed the winner on August 13, 1992.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Due Process: The COMELEC’s annulment of Bince’s proclamation without notice and hearing violated his right to due process. Although public office is not a property right, it is a protected right, and a candidate cannot be deprived of it without due process.
  2. Jurisdiction: The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to resolve the motion to annul the proclamation at the first instance. Pre-proclamation controversies must first be heard by a division.
  3. Validity of Corrections: The corrections to the SOVs and COCs were invalid because they were not made by the MBCs as a whole, as required by law. The COMELEC’s reliance on these corrections was unfounded.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.