G.R. No. 166105 - Octava vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner Atty. Gabriel B. Octava was proclaimed as the 10th Sangguniang Panlungsod member of Trece Martires City, Cavite following the May 10, 2004 national and local elections.
Private respondent Josefo B. Lubigan, who was also a candidate for the same position, filed a petition against both the City Board of Canvassers (CBOC) of Trece Martires City and petitioner Octava.

Lubigan contended that the CBOC erred in preparing the Statements of Votes (SOVs) by precinct.

He claimed he was credited with only 7,540 votes instead of the 7,740 votes he purportedly received.
Based on his allegation, had the correct vote count been recorded, he should have been declared the rightful 10th member.

The CBOC admitted that there was an error during its tabulation after receiving the ballot boxes and re-checking the election returns.

The error was discovered amidst a double-checking process of the SOVs.
Despite this admission, the CBOC maintained that its records did not exhibit a manifest error in computation during the canvassing proceedings.

Atty. Octava asserted that the error alleged by Lubigan did not warrant the annulment of his proclamation because:

There was no manifest error apparent in the official records or the minutes of the canvassing proceedings.
Any discrepancy should have been noted and resolved by the CBOC during the canvassing process.

He further argued that, having already been proclaimed, any challenge now falls under a pre-proclamation controversy, which is not amenable to a petition for certiorari under the current circumstances.

According to Octava, the proper remedy would have been an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding in the appropriate court.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved, through its Resolutions dated August 16, 2004 and November 2, 2004, to annul the proclamation of petitioner Octava.

COMELEC directed the CBOC to reconvene and make the necessary corrections in the SOV.
The COMELEC ordered that respondent Lubigan, who alleged the correct vote count, be proclaimed as the rightful winner of the 10th Sangguniang Panlungsod seat.

The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Octava was denied, prompting the instant petition for certiorari.

Petitioner claimed that he was denied due process because he was not furnished with a copy of the CBOC’s answer before the COMELEC, which he argued would have allowed him to challenge the discrepancy between the submissions of Lubigan and the CBOC.
Lubigan countered by emphasizing that denial of due process would require a complete lack of opportunity to be heard, which in this case was met by allowing oral arguments and the filing of pleadings.

Whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, by annulling petitioner Octava’s proclamation as the 10th member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and by directing the CBOC to correct the vote tally in favor of respondent Lubigan.
Whether there was a denial of due process when petitioner alleged that he was not provided a copy of the CBOC’s answer, thereby hindering his ability to raise the vote discrepancy issue.
Whether COMELEC erred in allowing Lubigan’s petition to be filed 15 days after petitioner’s proclamation, contrary to the prescribed five-day period, given that the rules may be suspended in the interest of justice and to ascertain the true will of the electorate.