G.R. No. 162035 - Cantoria vs. Commission on Elections

The election was held on July 15, 2002, for Barangay Captain in Poblacion East, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan.
Only two candidates, Cantoria and Lomboy, contested the election.
In the initial statement of votes, Cantoria garnered 233 votes while Lomboy secured 231 votes, leading to the proclamation of Cantoria as the duly elected Barangay Captain.

On July 19, 2002, Lomboy filed an election protest (Election Case No. 314) with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Santa Maria, Pangasinan.
Upon mutual agreement of the parties, the MTC ordered a revision of the ballots by a Revision Committee.
The Revision Committee’s recount revealed that Cantoria actually received 228 votes, while Lomboy maintained his 231 votes.

In its Decision dated September 5, 2002, the MTC ruled that Lomboy was the duly elected Punong Barangay of Poblacion East, thereby annulling Cantoria’s initial lead.
The decision was based on the revised vote count and an evaluation of the contested ballots.

Cantoria appealed the MTC decision to the COMELEC, arguing that the trial court erred in counting certain ballots.
COMELEC, in its Second Division Resolution dated January 29, 2004, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the MTC decision.
No Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Cantoria within the prescribed period.

After the COMELEC resolution became final and executory, Cantoria elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari, also seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction.
Cantoria alleged that the COMELEC committed abuse of discretion in affirming the MTC decision and raised several arguments regarding the counting of ballots, including:

That ballots with his nickname “Boyet Cantoria” (or its variations) should have been credited to him per his Certificate of Candidacy.
That ballots with terms like “Cristo Eleiser Lomboy” or “Adong Lomboy” were erroneously counted in favor of Lomboy.
That ballots with the word “Aconga” (though claimed not to be his registered name) should not have been credited to Lomboy.
That a ballot marked with Lomboy’s full name in the space for a different position (Kagawad Sangguniang Barangay) should have been treated as a stray vote.

Private Respondent contended that the COMELEC resolution was already final and executory due to Cantoria’s failure to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration.
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the evaluation of contested ballots was primarily a question of fact best left to COMELEC and that only a showing of grave abuse of discretion (not mere error in judgment) would warrant review by the Court.
It was underscored that the special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal.

The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, particularly Section 2, Rule 19 and Section 13(c), Rule 18, clearly fix the period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration, after which the resolution becomes final and executory.
Cantoria’s own neglect in not availing the proper remedy (i.e., filing a Motion for Reconsideration) formed a fundamental part of the factual record.

Whether COMELEC abused its discretion in affirming the MTC decision despite the alleged errors in the vote counting process.
Whether Cantoria’s appeal via a special civil action for certiorari is procedurally proper given that he failed to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration.
Whether the alleged irregularities in ballot markings and vote counts (including issues on nicknames and stray votes) substantiate a claim of grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial relief.