G.R. No. 171821 - Ferdez vs. Commission on Elections

In the May 10, 2004 national and local elections, petitioner Danilo “Dan” Fernandez and private respondent Teresita Lazaro ran for governor of Laguna.
During the canvassing of election returns by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC), petitioner raised issues alleging tampering in the election returns for San Pablo City and BiAan, Laguna.

Petitioner moved to suspend the canvassing on the ground that the election returns from the disputed areas were manipulated, thereby increasing the votes secured by private respondent.
The PBOC denied petitioner’s motion, ruling that such issues should be raised before the appropriate City and Municipal Boards of Canvassers.
Despite the petitioner's objections, the PBOC proceeded to proclaim Lazaro as Governor on May 16, 2004.

On May 19, 2004, petitioner initiated an appeal with the COMELEC’s First Division (docketed as SPC No. 04-105), challenging the proclamation of Lazaro.
Petitioner’s allegations included claims of flawed canvassing procedures at the PBOC and a failure to appropriately present evidence regarding tampering of the election returns.
Private respondent countered by alleging that petitioner did not file his objections in the prescribed written and formal manner, and failed to produce requisite evidence of fraud.

The First Division initially suspended private respondent’s proclamation and ordered the Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD) to examine the disputed photocopied election returns.
Although the suspension was later lifted upon private respondent’s motion, the First Division subsequently ordered further examination of the disputed returns and demanded copies of the returns from the concerned Boards of Canvassers.
Petitioner contested these orders, arguing that he had neither prayed for such examination nor was aware of its occurrence during the hearings.

On April 12, 2005, the First Division dismissed petitioner’s petition to nullify Lazaro’s proclamation.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC En Banc on March 9, 2006, based on a purported grave abuse of discretion.
The petition for certiorari under Rule 64 was thus filed to challenge the COMELEC’s handling and the alleged omission of the outcome of the technical examination of the election returns.

Petitioner claimed that there was deliberate omission and misapplication of technical rules, particularly regarding the timing and manner of objections pertaining to the election returns.
It was alleged that petitioner’s belated objections – regarding returns not only from San Pablo City and BiAan but also from Calamba City and four other municipalities – ran counter to the mandatory procedural requirements for contesting the canvass.
The petition ultimately rested on the assertion that the COMELEC had acted with grave abuse of discretion by failing to address critical evidence and issues related to the preparation, transmission, and appraisal of the election returns.

Whether petitioner’s oral and written objections to the election returns were filed in a timely manner, as required by Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7166 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6669.
Whether the objections should have been raised before the proper City and Municipal Boards of Canvassers, rather than at the provincial level.

Whether the COMELEC, in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and ultimately dismissing the petition, committed grave abuse of discretion by allegedly omitting the outcome of the technical examination of the election returns.
Whether the decisions of the PBOC and the First Division, predicated on strict adherence to technical rules regarding canvassing and objection procedures, were arbitrary or capricious.

Whether petitioner fulfilled the mandatory requirement of submitting both oral and written objections simultaneously, along with the necessary supporting evidence within twenty-four hours from the presentation of the questioned returns.
Whether the failure to comply with these procedural mandates amounts to a valid ground for dismissing the petition.