Case Digest (G.R. No. 144197)
Facts:
William P. Ong v. Commission on Elections and Isagani B. Rizon, G.R. No. 144197, December 13, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner William P. Ong and respondent Isagani B. Rizon were opposing candidates for mayor of Baroy, Lanao del Norte in the May 11, 1998 elections. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Ong the winner on May 13, 1998 with a 51-vote margin (Ong 4,472; Rizon 4,421). On May 22, 1998, Rizon filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (Election Case No. 07-431) contesting votes in five clustered precincts; only two precinct ballot boxes (Precincts 8A and 28A/28A1) were opened because Rizon waived revision in the others.
On March 25, 1999, the trial court annulled 45 votes for Ong and invalidated 2 votes for Rizon, reducing Ong’s lead to eight (Ong 4,427; Rizon 4,419). Rizon appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in EAC No. A‑12‑99. On February 1, 2000, the COMELEC Second Division (Presiding Commissioner Desamito, ponente) found serious reversible errors in the trial court’s ballot appreciation, invalidated 63 votes for Ong and 8 for Rizon, and concluded Rizon led by four (Ong 4,409; Rizon 4,413). Ong moved for reconsideration on February 7, 2000.
On August 15, 2000, the COMELEC en banc (Chairman Demetriou, ponente) affirmed the Second Division’s resolution but modified the tally by one vote, arriving at Ong 4,411 and Rizon 4,414 (Rizon leading). Ong filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order or status quo ante order (Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) in the Supreme Court on August 17, 2000, challenging the COMELEC en banc resolution as patently illegal and tainted by grave abuse of discretion in invalidating a large number of ballots.
The Supreme Court conducted a visual and thorough evaluation of the contested ballots, addressing numerous specific exhibits from the two opened precincts. The Court applied provisions of the Omnibus Election Code (notably Section 211 paragraphs (19), (22) and (9)) and relevant precedents (including Tajanlangit v. Cazenas, Ferrer v. de Alban, Delgado v. Tiu, Gadon v. Gadon, and Hilao v. Bernardo) to determine which ballots were valid, stray votes, or marked and...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in invalidating the contested ballots?
- On proper appreciation of the contested ballots, who is entitled to proclamation as the duly elected mayor of Baroy...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)