A.M. No. 100-MJ - Bulan vs. Cardenas

Petitioner Hector T. Hipe and respondent Ma. Cristina L. Vicencio were candidates for mayor in Catubig, Northern Samar during the May 14, 2007 elections.
The petition arose from a dispute over the exclusion of seven election returns allegedly tainted by duress, vote buying, threats, coercion, and other irregularities.

During the canvass proceedings, respondent Vicencio petitioned for the exclusion of seven election returns (Precinct Nos. 0037B, 0052A, 0053A, 0058A, 0080A, 0081A, and 0082A).
Vicencio supported her petition with affidavits from members of the Board of Election Inspectors, a sample ballot, and an ISO Assessment, alleging that the returns were prepared under duress and other improper circumstances.
On May 19, 2007, the MBOC ruled in favor of Vicencio and excluded the questioned returns.

On May 19, 2007, immediately after the MBOC ruling, petitioner Hipe filed a notice of appeal.
On May 29, 2007, Hipe filed his Verified Appeal with the COMELEC under docket SPC No. 07-206, contending:

The Second Division of COMELEC, in a resolution dated July 11, 2007, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was filed five days beyond the allowed period.
On July 17, 2007, Hipe filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
Concurrently, respondent Vicencio was proclaimed as mayor.

On January 30, 2008, the COMELEC En Banc issued a resolution denying Hipe’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The resolution affirmed that the ruling of the MBOC had attained finality.
It noted that the verified appeal was filed too late (beyond the inextendible period of five days).
The En Banc held that the case was no longer a pre-proclamation controversy but an election protest.

The MBOC had acted in accordance with its official duty.
The exclusion of the seven election returns was supported by affidavits from Board of Election Inspectors.
The procedural requirements had been substantially complied with.

A Certification issued by the Acting Election Officer II, Renato I. Madronio, stated that hard copies of the MBOC ruling had been furnished to Atty. V.B. Desales, counsel supposed to represent petitioner Hipe.
However, Atty. Desales later denied ever receiving any such document and even disclaimed any representation of Hipe.
The official records, including the Status of Canvass Report and the Minutes of the MBOC proceedings, failed to show that petitioner Hipe or his counsel had been furnished with a written ruling.
The MBOC minutes indicated that the required form of the ruling was still pending and had to be obtained elsewhere, casting doubt on the assertion of proper service.

Vicencio manifested oral objections on May 15, 2007, and subsequently filed her written objections on May 16, 2007.
Additional documentary evidence was submitted on the following day.
Despite minor delays, the COMELEC considered these actions as a substantial compliance with the requirement that objections be reduced in writing.

Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Hipe’s appeal on the ground that it was filed out of time.

Whether Hipe’s Verified Appeal, filed on May 29, 2007, was erroneously dismissed solely on the basis of a technical lapse (i.e., a five-day delay) especially considering the alleged non-receipt of the MBOC’s ruling.

Whether the exclusion of the seven election returns was adequately supported by credible evidence, such as the affidavits from the Board of Election Inspectors and other documentary materials.

Whether respondent Vicencio substantially complied with the requirement that objections be reduced into writing despite the minor delay in filing her written petition and subsequent evidence.