G.R. No. 246313 - Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs. Commission on Audit

The case involves a special civil action for certiorari filed by Salvador D. Violago, Sr. (petitioner) against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Joan V. Alarilla (respondent).
Both petitioner and respondent were candidates in the mayoralty race during the May 10, 2010 elections in the City of Meycauayan, Bulacan, with respondent ultimately being proclaimed the winner.

On May 21, 2010, petitioner filed an election protest questioning respondent’s proclamation on several grounds:

Massive vote-buying.
Intimidation and harassment.
Election fraud.
Non-appreciation by the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines of valid votes.
Irregularities due to non-observance of the COMELEC guidelines.

In response, on June 15, 2010, respondent filed her answer, attaching a motion to set the case for hearing by moving to dismiss for insufficiency in form and substance.

The COMELEC 2nd Division set a preliminary conference for August 12, 2010, as per its Order on July 16, 2010, and directed both parties to file their Preliminary Conference Briefs at least one day before the scheduled conference.
On August 11, 2010, respondent filed her Preliminary Conference Brief, while petitioner filed his Brief on the day of the conference.
Petitioner also filed an Urgent Motion to Reset the Preliminary Conference, contending that he did not receive any official notice of the hearing until he made inquiries the day before.
Moreover, petitioner argued that his counsel’s and associate’s prior commitments with other tribunals on the same day interfered with his ability to attend the conference.
Petitioner and his counsel consequently failed to appear at the scheduled preliminary conference on August 12, 2010.

On August 12, 2010, the COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed petitioner’s election protest on the technical ground that his Preliminary Conference Brief was filed belatedly.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 19, 2010, arguing that he had received the notice on August 16, 2010 and that the dismissal should be reconsidered because of procedural irregularities—particularly, the lack of timely notice.
On September 21, 2010, the COMELEC en banc denied the Motion for Reconsideration on the basis that the motion was not verified in accordance with Section 3, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Petitioner presented a Certification issued by the Postmaster of Meycauayan attesting that the COMELEC Order setting the preliminary conference was received only on August 16, 2010, not within the prescribed time.
An advisory from the Chief of the Operations Division of the TELECOM Office in Meycauayan corroborated that the telegraph service (used for sending the official notice) had been discontinued since April 1, 2009.
There was no evidence that the COMELEC 2nd Division had sought verification from the appropriate department regarding the alleged non-receipt of the notice.

He was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the preliminary conference, as he was not notified in time.
The dismissal based on a one-day delay was a harsh and disproportionate application of the rules.
The denial of his Motion for Reconsideration was not exercised with sound judicial discretion, undermining his right to due process.

In summary, petitioner contended that both the dismissal of his election protest by the COMELEC 2nd Division and the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration by the COMELEC en banc amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the COMELEC 2nd Division committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s election protest on the ground of a belated Preliminary Conference Brief, particularly given the lack of timely notice.
Whether the COMELEC en banc’s denial of the Motion for Reconsideration—despite its failure to be verified—amounted to an abuse of discretion, especially when considering the petitioner’s meritorious claim of not having been given ample notice to prepare his case.
Whether the strict application of procedural rules in this election protest, without considering the underlying merits and fundamental due process, is consistent with the liberal construction mandated for election-related disputes.