G.R. No. L-14689 - General Maritime Stevedores' Union of the Philippines vs. South Sea Shipping Line

Petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato and respondent Renato J. Unico were candidates for the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte in the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections.
During the canvassing of election returns by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Labo, petitioner Chato’s counsel raised several objections regarding manifest errors and obvious discrepancies in the election returns from various precincts.

The petitioner contended that during the canvassing (May 10–12, 2004), her counsel pointed out discrepancies in the election returns but was given only twenty-four (24) hours to substantiate such allegations before the proceedings were suspended.
It is alleged that, in violation of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7166, the MBC Labo concluded the canvassing prematurely without accommodating the petitioner’s written objections.
Specific allegations included:

Incorrect recording of the total number of ballots versus actual voters in several barangays.
Inconsistencies in the total number of votes counted compared to the number of voters.
Suspicion that some election returns, purportedly from different precincts, were identical or prepared by the same hand.
Omission of election data from several barangays.
Alleged inclusion of a return from a non-existent barangay.

The board suspended the canvassing but failed to properly rule on the petitioner's objections before hastily transmitting the results to the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC).

Petitioner moved to suspend proceedings; however, the motion was denied, and a letter-petition for reconsideration was also summarily denied.
On May 14, 2004, the PBC proclaimed respondent Unico as the representative-elect of the district.

On July 2, 2004, the COMELEC ordered the suspension of respondent Unico’s proclamation.
On July 23, 2004, COMELEC lifted the suspension, stating that respondent Unico’s taking of oath and assumption of office divested the Commission of jurisdiction over his election contest.
On April 13, 2005, a Resolution dismissed petitioner Chato’s petition, clarifying that the issues raised were tantamount to a request for a recount—which is not actionable as a pre-proclamation controversy.

Petitioner Chato filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 13, 2005 Resolution, which was elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
On March 17, 2006, the COMELEC en banc denied the motion, reaffirming that its jurisdiction had already lapsed upon respondent Unico’s oath-taking as a member of the Thirteenth Congress.
The petition further contended that:

The COMELEC’s resolution was based on doctored election documents and did not reflect the genuine will of the electorate.
The Commission retained supervisory authority over the boards of canvassers, including the power to examine manifest errors even after a candidate’s proclamation.
The petition sought corrective measures such as re-canvassing and the formation of a new MBC.

Petitioner Chato cited Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is the “sole judge” of all contests concerning the election, returns, and qualifications of its members.
The COMELEC relied on earlier decisions (e.g., Pangilinan, Aggabao) to assert that once a candidate is proclaimed, takes oath, and assumes office, the jurisdiction over any contest shifts exclusively to the HRET.
The petitioner argued that the COMELEC had not fully exercised its supervisory powers regarding the correctness of the election returns and the composition or proceedings of the boards of canvassers.

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that it had lost jurisdiction over petitioner Chato’s petition due to respondent Unico’s proclamation and oath-taking as a Member of the House of Representatives.

Whether the petitioner’s claims relating to manifest errors in the canvassing process and the alleged tampering of election returns should have been addressed as an electoral protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) rather than through a petition for certiorari before the COMELEC.

Whether the COMELEC retains the power to review, correct, and reorder the canvassing of votes, including issues concerning manifest errors, even after a candidate has been proclaimed and has taken the oath of office.