Case Digest (G.R. No. 142507)
Facts:
Alfredo U. Malabaguio v. The Commission on Elections and Mirali Mendoza-Durr, G.R. No. 142507, December 01, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Both parties were candidates for Punong Barangay, Barangay 172, Caloocan City, in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections; Mirali Mendoza‑Durr was proclaimed winner with 1,263 votes against Alfredo U. Malabaguio's 1,095 votes. Malabaguio filed an election protest (EPC No. 97‑12) with the Metropolitan Trial Court (initially Branch 51, later re‑raffled to Branch 49), praying for revision of ballots in all fifteen precincts.
On April 3, 1998 the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 49 (Judge Belen Ortiz) rendered judgment declaring Malabaguio the winner. Mendoza‑Durr filed a notice of appeal on April 16, 1998. Malabaguio moved for execution pending appeal; by Order dated May 4, 1998 the trial court directed Mendoza‑Durr to vacate and turn over the office pending final determination. Mendoza‑Durr sought relief with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) (docketed SPR No. 22‑98).
Both parties submitted briefs to COMELEC (Mendoza‑Durr’s appellant brief, Nov. 12, 1998; Malabaguio’s appellee brief, Dec. 16, 1998). The COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution on March 11, 1999 setting aside the Metropolitan Trial Court decision and declaring Mendoza‑Durr duly elected with 1,181 valid votes against Malabaguio’s 1,127. The Second Division invalidated 24 ballots in Precinct No. 760 and 33 ballots in Precinct No. 762/762‑A — all votes for Malabaguio — for lack of the chairman’s signature at the back.
Malabaguio filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Mar. 15, 1999) and a Motion to Admit Additional Assigned Error (Mar. 22, 1999), arguing that the unsigned ballots should not have been invalidated and that he was denied due process. The COMELEC En Banc denied the motions by Resolution dated April 4, 2000, a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion or error of law in invalidating fifty‑seven (57) ballots for lack of the chairman’s signature at the back?
- If so, should those fifty‑seven ballots be counted for petitioner and the Metropolitan Trial Court decision reinstated declaring p...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)