Case Digest (G.R. No. 171821)
Facts:
Danilo "Dan" Fernandez v. Commission on Elections and Teresita Lazaro, G.R. No. 171821, October 09, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Danilo "Dan" Fernandez and private respondent Teresita Lazaro were candidates for Governor of Laguna in the May 10, 2004 national and local elections. During the Provincial Board of Canvassers’ (PBOC) canvassing, Fernandez orally moved to suspend the proceedings, alleging tampering of election returns for San Pablo City and Biñan that purportedly increased Lazaro’s votes; the PBOC denied the motion and proceeded to proclaim Lazaro on May 16, 2004.
On May 19, 2004 Fernandez filed a petition to annul Lazaro’s proclamation with the COMELEC First Division docketed as SPC No. 04‑105, alleging flaws and irregularities in the PBOC proceedings and the contested returns. Lazaro moved to dismiss, arguing Fernandez failed to make written and formal objections before the proper boards of canvassers and presented no evidence of fraud in the San Pablo and Biñan certificates of canvass (COCVs).
The First Division initially suspended Lazaro’s proclamation and directed the Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD) to examine whether photocopied election returns were prepared in sets by a single person; that suspension was later lifted and the ERSD order stayed. Subsequently the First Division again directed the ERSD to examine returns from the disputed cities/municipalities and ordered the local boards of canvassers to deliver copies of the returns. Lazaro objected to those orders, asserting she was not aware of returns being presented during hearings and that Fernandez had not prayed for such examination.
On April 12, 2005 the First Division dismissed Fernandez’s petition to annul the proclamation. Fernandez sought reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc; the En Banc denied reconsideration by resolution dated March 9, 2006. Fernandez then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 64 of the Rules...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division’s dismissal of Fernandez’s petition?
- Were Fernandez’s objections to the inclusion of certain election returns fatal for being belated and for failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7166 and Section 36 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669 (implementation rules)?
- Was the First Division required or authorized to undertake technical examination/recount of the underlying election returns and related document...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)