G.R. No. 108886 - Reyes vs. Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Branch XXXX

Petitioner Aquiles U. Reyes was proclaimed as the eighth member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro following the May 11, 1992 synchronized elections.
Private respondent Adolfo G. Comia, also a candidate for the same position, contested the election results based on alleged irregularities in counting and computation of votes.

During the Municipal Board of Canvassers’ proceedings on May 13, 1992, Comia moved to exclude certain election returns on the ground that votes counted in favor of petitioner Reyes were erroneously recorded for “Reyes” only, given the existence of another candidate, Epitacio Reyes, with the same surname.
Despite the objection, the Board proceeded to proclaim Reyes as the winning candidate with 7,205 votes without resolving Comia’s petition.

On May 25, 1992, Reyes took his oath of office.
Comia filed an election protest on June 1, 1992 before the trial court alleging a “vital mistake” in the mathematical computation of Reyes’ votes.

It was asserted that the Statement of Votes (C.E. Form No. 20-A) showed only 858 votes for Reyes when, after corrections, the proper count should have been 915 votes.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers, along with the Election Registrar, admitted that an honest mistake was made during the transcription of votes.
The corrected computation indicated that Reyes obtained a total of 7,233 votes, which exceeded Comia’s 7,205 by more than 28 votes.

On June 4, 1992, Reyes filed a motion to dismiss Comia’s petition on grounds of tardiness (late filing beyond the reglementary ten-day period), but the trial court denied this motion on June 15, 1992.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers in its answer acknowledged the miscomputation in the votes credited to petitioner Reyes.
On June 23, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision annulling Reyes’ proclamation and declared Comia as the duly elected member.
Reyes filed a notice of appeal to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and simultaneously pursued a petition for mandamus and prohibition in the Court of Appeals to compel the Sangguniang Bayan’s recognition of his election.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Reyes’ petition on August 26, 1992, citing the pending appeal before the COMELEC and Supreme Court Circular 28-91 that discourages multiple petitions involving the same issues.
The COMELEC’s First Division subsequently dismissed Reyes’ appeal on January 22, 1993, for failure to pay the appeal fee within the prescribed period.

Reyes also contested that a re-canvass of votes in various precincts should be conducted, basing his claim on a joint-affidavit and certification regarding misattributed votes in Precincts No. 37 and 41-A.
This issue had previously been raised in the addendum to his brief in the COMELEC Case EAC No. 9-92, but was rendered moot by the dismissal of the case.

Petitioner contended that both the trial court and the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion:

The trial court for assuming jurisdiction despite the allegedly tardy filing of Comia’s petition (beyond 10 days after Reyes’ proclamation).
The COMELEC for dismissing his appeal for the untimely payment of the appeal fee.

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the COMELEC, argued that Reyes’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc – as mandated by Art. IX, A, 7 of the Constitution – renders his petition before the Supreme Court impermissible.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, as required by Art. IX, A, 7 of the Constitution, renders his petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court inadmissible.

Whether the dismissal of Reyes’ appeal by the COMELEC’s First Division for the late payment of the appeal fee was proper under the applicable COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Whether the trial court’s decision, rendered despite the alleged delay in the filing of the election protest by the private respondent (Comia), justifies the subsequent petition for mandamus and prohibition.
Whether the additional claim for a re-canvass based on alleged misattributions of votes in certain precincts holds merit given the prior dismissals and rulings.