Case Summary (G.R. No. 155717)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Relevant election: May 14, 2001.
Proclamation by Municipal Board of Canvassers: May 16, 2001.
COMELEC en banc resolution under review: October 24, 2002.
Supreme Court decision date (for choice of constitution): October 23, 2003 — accordingly, the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article IX-C) governs the constitutional analysis applied by the Court. Applicable COMELEC rules and cited precedent from the prompt guided procedural and substantive determinations.
Factual Background and Tabulation Error
The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed eight members of the Sangguniang Bayan on May 16, 2001, with petitioner Jaramilla listed as eighth with 4,815 votes and respondent Suyat ranked ninth with 4,779 votes. Suyat discovered that Jaramilla’s vote total for Precinct No. 34A1 was shown as 23 votes on the Election Return but was recorded as 73 votes in the Statement of Votes by Precinct — an erroneous addition of fifty votes in Jaramilla’s favor. If corrected, the ranking would place Cortez seventh (4,807), Suyat eighth (4,779), and Jaramilla ninth (4,765).
Procedural Posture Before COMELEC
On June 13, 2001, Suyat filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene, treated by COMELEC as a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. Jaramilla answered, asserting procedural defects: (1) the petition was filed beyond the five-day reglementary period for correction petitions, (2) absence of a certification against forum-shopping, and (3) failure to timely pay docket or filing fees. COMELEC en banc granted the petition, annulled Jaramilla’s proclamation, created a new municipal board of canvassers to correct the Statement of Votes using COMELEC copies of election returns, and ordered proclamation of Suyat as the eighth member and Cortez as the seventh.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioner raised primarily procedural grounds: (1) that the petition for correction was barred by the five-day filing rule in Section 5(2), Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure; (2) lack of certification against forum-shopping; and (3) nonpayment of filing/docket fees. Underlying the challenges was an allegation of grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC in taking cognizance of and granting Suyat’s petition.
Jurisdictional and Institutional Authority of COMELEC en banc
The Court analyzed Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which allows COMELEC to sit en banc or in divisions and requires promulgation of rules to expedite election cases, noting that, as a general rule, adjudicatory election matters and pre-proclamation controversies are to be heard and decided in division first, with motions for reconsideration decided en banc. The Court emphasized the limiting principle that this division/en banc sequence applies when COMELEC is exercising its quasi-judicial/adjudicatory powers, but not when it is exercising administrative functions. Citing prior jurisprudence (Castromayor; Canicosa), the Court explained that purely administrative actions — such as correcting a clerical tabulation error that does not require opening ballot boxes or examining ballots — may be directly undertaken by the COMELEC en banc. Applying that distinction, the Court held that the petition for correction here alleged a clerical copying error from Election Return to Statement of Votes, a matter properly within COMELEC’s administrative power and thus within the en banc’s original jurisdiction.
COMELEC’s Discretion to Suspend Rules and Accept Late or Procedurally Defective Petitions
The Court addressed the procedural objections by recognizing that COMELEC possesses discretion to suspend its rules in the interest of justice and to obtain a speedy disposition of election matters (Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules). This power permits COMELEC to relax reglementary periods and other procedural requirements, such as certification against forum-shopping, when justice so requires. The Court found that COMELEC properly exercised its discretion to consider the petition for correction despite the late filing and omitted certification, given the nature of the relief sought and the public interest in accurately determining the people’s will.
Nonpayment of Filing Fees and Discretion under COMELEC Rules
Concerning nonpayment of filing fees, the Court relied on Section 18, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (as quoted in the prompt), which uses permissive language (“may”) regarding dismissal for nonpayment. The Court concluded that COMELEC is not compelled to dismiss actions for failure to pay fees; instead, it has discretion either to refuse action until payment or to dismiss, and, as part of its inherent authority to suspend rules, could proceed despite nonpayment. Accordingly, the omission of filing fees did not mandate dismissal.
Evidentiary Findings: Manifest Error in Tabulation
The Court noted that petitioner’s Answer before COMELEC failed to rebut or produce evidence countering the photocopies of election returns and the Statement of Votes presented by Suyat, which clearly showed the erroneous additio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155717)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court, En Banc, G.R. No. 155717; reported at 460 Phil. 507; decision dated October 23, 2003; penned by Justice Azcuna.
- Petition for certiorari filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with prayer for TRO and preliminary injunction.
- The relief sought was a review of COMELEC en banc Resolution dated October 24, 2002, on grounds of alleged grave abuse of discretion.
Antecedent Facts — Candidates and Election Date
- Both Antonio Suyat (respondent) and Alberto J. Jaramilla (petitioner) ran for Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur, in the May 14, 2001 elections.
- The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz proclaimed winners for Mayor, Vice-Mayor and eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Bayan on May 16, 2001.
Certificate of Canvass and Initial Tabulation Results
- The Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation (as issued by the Municipal Board) showed the following vote totals and rankings for the eight (8) proclaimed members (listed with total votes obtained):
- RAGUCOS, Ma. Luisa Laxamana — 6,324
- ABAYA, Juan Jr., Andaquig — 6,013
- GINES, Fidel Cudiamat — 5,789
- QUILOP, Renato Avila — 5,227
- BILIGAN, Osias Depdepen — 5,130
- RUIZ, Agustin Turgano — 4,972
- JARAMILLA, Alberto Jimeno — 4,815
- CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon — 4,807
- In the tabulated results issued by the Election Officer and Chairperson of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, Antonio Suyat was shown to have obtained 4,779 votes and was ranked no. 9.
Discrepancy Identified — Precinct 34A1 Figures
- Respondent Suyat found that petitioner Jaramilla was credited with only twenty-three (23) votes in the Election Return from Precinct No. 34A1, but the Statement of Votes by Precinct credited Jaramilla with seventy-three (73) votes for the same precinct — an apparent over-crediting of fifty (50) votes in favor of Jaramilla when the figures were transferred.
- Correcting this clerical error (deducting 50 votes from Jaramilla's total) would alter the affected candidates’ rankings as follows:
- CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon — 4,807
- SUYAT, Antonio — 4,779
- JARAMILLA, Alberto — 4,765
Filing Before COMELEC and COMELEC Action
- On June 13, 2001, Antonio Suyat filed before the COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene, which COMELEC treated as a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error.
- Petitioner Jaramilla filed an Answer alleging the petition was filed out of time and lacked the required certification of non-forum shopping; petitioner also alleged failure to pay docket/filing fee on time.
- On October 24, 2002, the COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution granting the petition to correct manifest error; the dispositive parts of the resolution:
- Annulled the proclamation of Alberto J. Jaramilla.
- Created a New Municipal Board of Canvassers composed of:
- Atty. Nelia Aureus — Chairman
- Atty. Michael D. Dioneda — Vice Chairman
- Atty. Allen Francis F. Abaya — Member
- Directed the New Board to convene at the Comelec Session Hall, Intramuros, Manila, after due notice to parties, to effect the correction in the Statement of Votes by Precinct: credit Alberto J. Jaramilla with twenty-three (23) votes only for Precinct No. 34A1.
- Directed preparation of a corrected Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation based on the corrected Statement of Votes, to proclaim Antonio Suyat as the eighth (8th) Board Member and declare Ireneo Habon Cortez the 7th Municipal Board Member.
- Ordered the New Board to use the Comelec copies of the election returns and Statement of Votes pertaining to the case.
Grounds of Petitioner’s Recourse to the Supreme Court
- Petitioner Jaramilla sought certiorari, arguing that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by:
- Taking cognizance of Suyat’s petition despite its alleged filing beyond the five (5) day reglementary period set in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
- Entertaining the petition despite lack of certification against forum-shopping.
- Failing to dismiss the case for respondent’s alleged failure to pay the filing/docket fee on time.
Jurisdictional Framework for COMELEC Action
- Constitutional provision invoked: Article IX-C (Sec. 3) — COMELEC “may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such ele