G.R. No. 164225 - Galo vs. Commission on Elections

This case involves petitioner Juhary A. Galo challenging the actions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur, and respondent Minda P. Dagalangit.
The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari against a COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated July 2, 2004.

In the May 10, 2004 national and local elections in Lumba-Bayabao, serious disagreements arose among candidates regarding precinct clustering, distribution of election paraphernalia, and appointment of Board of Election Inspectors members, leading to a failure of the election.
Due to the failure on May 10, 2004, the COMELEC scheduled and conducted a special election on May 12, 2004.

On May 19, 2004, petitioner Galo filed his petition with COMELEC En Banc seeking:

A declaration of failure of election;
Annulment of the results of the May 12, 2004 special election in six specific precincts (Precinct Nos. 1A, 34A, 29B, 22A, 31A, and 36A) located in Barangays Maribu, Sunggod, Rumayas, Lubo Basara, Salaman, and Tamlang respectively.

Fake ballots were introduced in Precinct No. 1A (Barangay Maribu);
In Precinct No. 34A (Barangay Sunggod), a ballot box was hidden by election inspectors purportedly to prevent its forcible removal;
During the vote count in several precincts, fake ballots were discovered in the ballot boxes;
Election inspectors refused to record their valid objections in the minutes;
The overall election returns did not reflect the true will of the electorate due to these irregularities.

Consequently, he sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the canvassing of election returns from the affected precincts and prayed for an annulment of the election results and an investigation into the anomalies.

On May 21, 2004, COMELEC En Banc issued a TRO directing the Municipal Board of Canvassers to suspend its proceedings, including the proclamation of winning candidates.
Respondent Dagalangit, in her Answer dated May 24, 2004, denied the allegations, asserting that all 39 precincts functioned in an orderly and peaceful manner and that all ballots were properly handled under close scrutiny by candidates’ watchers.
On May 27, 2004, during a hearing, petitioner Galo failed to appear and instead filed an ex-parte motion stating that he had already been proclaimed as the winning candidate on May 20, 2004, rendering his petition "moot and academic" as he lost interest in pursuing the matter.

The parties later submitted their respective memoranda after the ex-parte motion by petitioner.
On July 2, 2004, COMELEC En Banc issued its Resolution which:

Dismissed the petition for lack of merit;
Annulled petitioner Galo’s proclamation dated May 20, 2004, labeling it as surreptitiously made and in contravention of the May 21, 2004 TRO;
Ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene, complete the canvassing, and proclaim the winning candidates.

The Resolution specifically held that the alleged use of fake ballots, although mentioned, was not a valid ground under the Omnibus Election Code for nullifying election results.

On July 4, 2004, the Municipal Board of Canvassers completed its canvass and proclaimed respondent Dagalangit as the winning candidate for mayor of Lumba-Bayabao.
Petitioner Galo then resorted to filing the Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing his petition.

Petitioner contended that the irregularities and alleged misuse of fake ballots during the special election justified a declaration of failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code.
He further argued that the COMELEC’s nullification of his earlier proclamation was erroneous and that these irregularities should have resulted in the annulment of the election results.

The COMELEC maintained that the irregularities alleged did not meet the statutory threshold for declaring a failure of election, as all precincts conducted valid voting.
The Supreme Court was asked to review whether COMELEC’s actions amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and whether petitioner’s claims were legally sustainable.

Whether COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner Galo’s petition seeking a declaration of failure of election and annulment of the special election results, or whether its actions were within its proper jurisdiction.

Did the alleged irregularities (including the introduction of fake ballots) substantiate a failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code?
Whether the petitioner’s failure to adequately prove that the votes cast affected the election result undermined his petition.
Whether the COMELEC’s decision to nullify the petitioner’s proclamation and order a fresh canvassing was justified under the law.