Case Summary (G.R. No. 141952-53)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Key dates: 11 May 1998 (election); 13–14 May 1998 (canvassing and filing of objections before MBC); 15 May 1998 (Notice of Appeal to COMELEC Second Division); 4 August 1998 (COMELEC Second Division resolution excluding three precinct returns); 10–17 August 1998 (motions for reconsideration, elevation to en banc, and MBC proclamation of petitioner); 25 August 1998 (quo warranto/Special Civil Action No. 98‑141 filed in RTC by Vice‑Mayor Betita); 24 August 1999 (COMELEC en banc resolution promulgated 2 March 2000 reversing Second Division and annulling petitioner’s proclamation); 13 March 2000 (new MBC proclaimed Bernal).
Applicable law and principles applied: 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article IX‑A, Section 7 as to COMELEC collegiality and quorum issues); provisions of the Omnibus Election Code (Secs. 234–236 cited by petitioner); jurisprudential rules governing pre‑proclamation controversies versus election protests and quo warranto, and the standard of review for COMELEC factual findings.
Facts Presented to the Municipal Board of Canvassers
Petitioner’s submissions to the MBC consisted primarily of joint and individual affidavits from LAMMP watchers and supporters alleging intimidation, coercion and other irregularities at precincts 61A, 62A and 63A/64A (clustered) in Barangay Pantalan: presence of barangay officials inside polling places acting as watchers for respondent; PO3 Gilbert Sorongon allegedly roaming armed and not in uniform; a CVO in uniform present; watchers driven away; BEIs intimidated and returns prepared under duress; watchers forced to sign or thumbmark prepared returns; and unusually late closing of voting. A PNP blotter report and a police certification were also offered as corroboration. Respondent Bernal submitted joint affidavits of the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs) for the contested precincts denying all allegations and attesting to peaceful, orderly elections with authentic returns prepared simultaneously with counting. The numerical results showed Bernal leading overall, including large margins in the contested precincts.
Procedural History Before COMELEC and the Regular Court
The MBC denied petitioner’s objections and included the contested returns in the canvass. Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC Second Division, which, by resolution dated 4 August 1998, excluded the three contested returns and directed the MBC to reconvene and proclaim the mayoralty winner. Bernal filed a motion for reconsideration and sought elevation to the COMELEC en banc. The MBC, citing lack of an official certification of elevation, proceeded to proclaim Dumayas on 17 August 1998 after excluding the three returns per the Second Division resolution. Vice‑Mayor Betita filed Special Civil Action No. 98‑141 (captioned as quo warranto) in the Regional Trial Court challenging the proclamation as illegal and seeking annulment. COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion to expunge Bernal’s motions, reversed the Second Division’s exclusion in a resolution dated 24 August 1999 (promulgated 2 March 2000), annulled Dumayas’s proclamation, constituted a new MBC, and directed a complete canvass; the new MBC proclaimed Bernal on 13 March 2000. Petitioner filed the present special civil action attacking the COMELEC en banc resolution.
Issues Presented
The Court distilled three issues: (1) whether Bernal (named as a petitioner in the RTC action) should be deemed to have abandoned his motions before COMELEC by the filing of the quo warranto/action in the RTC; (2) whether COMELEC erred in ordering inclusion of the three contested election returns in the canvass; and (3) whether the en banc resolution of COMELEC dated 24 August 1999 (promulgated 2 March 2000) was invalid because two commissioners who had signed the resolution had retired before promulgation, thus violating Article IX‑A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
Analysis — Retirement of Commissioners and Validity of the En Banc Resolution
The Court applied the rule established in Jamil v. COMELEC that a collegiate decision becomes binding only upon promulgation, and if a member who previously voted has vacated office before promulgation, that member’s vote is treated as withdrawn. The effect of withdrawal is to remove those votes from the tally; however, the decision is not automatically void unless the withdrawal of votes materially affects the result. Applying this principle, the votes of retired Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and Japal Guiani were treated as withdrawn because they had retired before promulgation. The remaining four commissioners at promulgation still constituted a quorum and voted 3–1 in favor of Bernal. Because cancellation of the retired commissioners’ votes did not alter the outcome and the remaining members formed a quorum, the defect did not invalidate the en banc resolution. The Court therefore rejected petitioner’s contention that the resolution violated Article IX‑A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
Analysis — Whether Bernal Abandoned His COMELEC Motions by Filing the RTC Action
The Court recognized the general rule that filing an election protest or a quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code may preclude continued pursuit of a pre‑proclamation controversy before COMELEC because jurisdiction over the substantive contest vests in the tribunal first acquiring proper jurisdiction. However, that rule admits exceptions, including where the RTC filing is not a true quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code or an election protest. Examination of Special Civil Action No. 98‑141 revealed that, despite being styled as a quo warranto, it was not a quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code nor a classic election protest; rather, it was essentially a petition to annul Dumayas’s proclamation and an action asserting succession rights under the Local Government Code because of alleged illegal and premature proclamation. The nature of the action is determined by the averments, not by its caption. Because the RTC petition sought annulment of the proclamation — a matter within COMELEC’s original and exclusive jurisdiction as a pre‑proclamation controversy — Bernal’s inclusion in that RTC filing did not operate to abandon his motions before COMELEC. Consequently, COMELEC did not err in refusing to expunge Bernal’s pending motions.
Analysis — Inclusion of the Contested
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 141952-53)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- This is a special civil action filed by petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. seeking nullification of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc Resolution promulgated March 2, 2000 (promulgation of an August 24, 1999 resolution), which reversed the COMELEC Second Division resolution dated August 4, 1998 that had annulled Dumayas’ proclamation as Municipal Mayor of Carles, Iloilo.
- The petitioners ask the Court to annul the COMELEC en banc resolution and to restore Dumayas’ proclamation as municipal mayor.
- The COMELEC en banc had reversed the Second Division and ordered a new canvass that resulted in the proclamation of private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr. as mayor on March 13, 2000.
- The Supreme Court framed the issues for resolution as: (1) whether respondent Bernal was deemed to have abandoned his motions before COMELEC by participating in quo warranto proceedings in the regular courts; (2) whether COMELEC erred in ordering inclusion in the canvass of contested election returns from three precincts; and (3) whether the COMELEC resolution of March 2, 2000 was invalid because two commissioners who had earlier participated had retired before promulgation, thus allegedly violating Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Factual Background — Election, Canvass and Contest
- The contested election was the synchronized local elections of 11 May 1998 for the position of mayor of the Municipality of Carles, Iloilo.
- Petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr. were rival candidates for mayor.
- During canvassing on 13 May 1998, Dumayas protested the inclusion in the canvass of election returns from Precincts Nos. 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A (clustered), all within Barangay Pantalan.
- Grounds for exclusion asserted by petitioner were violations of Sections 234, 235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws, and allegations of acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion and similar acts prohibited by law.
- On 14 May 1998 Dumayas submitted evidence to the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) consisting of multiple affidavits and a police blotter certification; respondents submitted counter-affidavits from the Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs) and other involved persons denying the allegations.
- The MBC on 14 May 1998 denied petitioner’s objections and proceeded with canvass; the overall vote totals after canvass were Dumayas 7,777 and Bernal 7,904 (Bernal leading overall).
Evidence Presented by Petitioner (Items and Allegations)
- Evidence submitted by petitioner on May 14, 1998 included:
- Joint affidavits by LAMMP watchers for Precinct 61A (Teresita Oblido, Reyland de la Rosa, Armando Flores — signed by Oblido and Flores only).
- Affidavit of petitioner’s supporter Virgilisa Capao.
- Joint affidavit of precinct 63A watcher Nona Dichosa and precinct 62A watcher Daniel Carmona.
- Blotter report dated 12 May 1998 of Carles PNP, Iloilo.
- Corroborating affidavit of LAMMP supporter Honorato Gallardo.
- A certification issued by PO3 Tito Billones, Desk Officer of PNP Carles, which represented the blotter report extracted from the police log book.
- Core allegations in these affidavits and certification:
- Certain local barangay officials were inside the polling place during casting and counting, or acted as watchers of respondent.
- SPO3 Gilbert Sorongon, described as in shorts and t-shirt, armed with an armalite and with hand grenades visible, roamed around and inside polling places.
- Presence of a CVO in uniform roaming Precinct 63A.
- Presence of public officials posed threats and intimidation, driving most watchers of other political parties away.
- BEIs were so intimidated and coerced that no election return was prepared simultaneously with the tallying; election returns were prepared under duress.
- Voters were coerced to vote for certain favored candidates, especially respondent Bernal.
- Petitioner’s watchers were made to sign or affix thumbmarks on already prepared election returns.
- In precinct 63A/64A, voting ended at almost 9:00 P.M. without BEI members writing the names of such voters.
- The blotter/PO3 Billones certification stated that Virgilisa Capao reported that PO3 Sorongon and Brgy. Capt. Mahilum entered Precinct 63A with other CVOs and barangay kagawads and gravely intimidated voters by telling them names of the candidates to vote for.
Evidence and Denials Presented by Respondents
- Respondent Bernal and supporting parties submitted:
- Joint affidavits of members of the different BEIs for precincts 61A, 62A and 63A/64A.
- A joint affidavit of Nody Mahilum and PO3 Gilbert Sorongon denying the accusations.
- Core content of BEI and other affidavits:
- The elections in their precincts from start of voting to closing, counting and preparation/submission of election returns were peaceful, clean, orderly; no acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion or similar acts occurred.
- Incidents alleged by petitioner’s watchers did not happen.
- Alleged public officials’ actions (opening ballots, reading votes, etc.) were untrue; those persons were inside the polling places only to exercise suffrage.
- Election returns were simultaneously and properly prepared with tallying; BEIs as public school teachers would not risk career by falsifying elections.
Municipal Board of Canvassers, Canvass Results and Initial Appeals
- On 14 May 1998 the MBC denied petitioner’s objections and proceeded with the canvass.
- The canvassed vote totals for the three contested precincts were:
- Precinct 61A — Dumayas 44, Bernal 117
- Precinct 62A — Dumayas 43, Bernal 114
- Precinct 63A/64A (clustered) — Dumayas 54, Bernal 159
- Uncontested precincts: Dumayas 7,636; Bernal 7,514
- Overall total: Dumayas 7,777; Bernal 7,904 (Bernal ahead).
- Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the MBC on 15 May 1998; the COMELEC Second Division took up the appeal.
COMELEC Second Division Resolution (August 4, 1998)
- The COMELEC Second Division (composed of Commissioners Japal Guiani — ponente; Julio Desamito — dissenting; and Chairman Bernardo Pardo — concurring) rendered a resolution dated August 4, 1998.
- The Second Division resolved to exclude Election Return No. 3000976 (Precinct 61-A), No. 3000977 (Precinct 62-A), and No. 3000978 (Precinct Nos. 63-A/64-A clustered) from the canvass, finding the preparation of the contested returns tainted with irregularities.
- The Second Division directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene, finish canvass of remaining uncontested returns and proclaim the winning mayoralty candidate of Carles, Iloilo.
Post-Second Division Procedural Events, Motions and Local Proclamations
- On August 10, 1998, private respondent Bernal filed a motion for reconsideration of the Second Division resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
- On August 12, 1998 an order certifying elevation of Bernal’s motion for reconsideration and records to the COMELEC en banc was signed by Commissioner Julio F. Desamito and issued by the Clerk of the Commission.
- Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration, and pursuant to the Second Division resolution, Election Officer Rolando Dalen set reconvening of the MBC on August 13, 1998 to continue canvass and proclaim vice-mayor and councilors; no mayor was proclaimed because Bernal presented a copy of his motion for reconsideration.
- The MBC reset reconvening to August 17, 1998 after confirming elevation to the en banc. The MBC ruled proclamation would proceed on August 17 unless Bernal presented certification from COMELEC that the motion for reconsideration had been elevated.
- On August 17, 1998 the MBC, with its Vice-Chairman dissenting, proceeded to proclaim petitioner Dumayas winner after excluding the three contested returns in accordance with the Second Division resolution, justifying its act on the ground it had not received an official copy of the order directing elevation to the en banc.
- On August 18, 1998 private respondent filed an urgent motion to declare petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio on the ground that the Second Division resolution was not yet final and executory.
- Petitioner opposed the motions for reconsideration and the motion to declare the proclamation void ab initio, arguing Bernal failed to show palpable errors and that proclamation was lawful because respondent faile