SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 80868 March 3, 1988

JUDGE RODOLFO T. ALLARDE, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LAS PIÑAS MUNTINLUPA AND DR. FILEMON C. AGUILAR.

In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, petitioner Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde, one of the ten (10) congressional candidates for the district of Las Piñas Muntinlupa in the May 11, 1987 elections, seeks to annul and set aside the order of the Comelec (Second Division), dated July 13, 1987 in the consolidated cases docketed as SPC 87-197 (Lucina Teodoro vs. Board of Canvassers of Las Piñas Muntinlupa District) and SPC 87-201 (In re: Petition to Suspend and Annul the Canvassing of Votes and the Result of the Canvass in Muntinlupa-Las Piñas Congressional District, Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde, Petitioner), and the decision of the Comelec En Banc dated December 7,1987, in SPC No. 87-201 dismissing the petitions and the motions filed by Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde.chanrobles virtual law library

Records show that on May 14, 1987, petitioner Allarde filed with the Comelec a petition docketed as SPC No. 87-201, subsequently amended on June 5,1987, praying for the suspension of the canvassing of votes and the annulment of the results of the canvass in the Las Piñas Muntinlupa congressional district due to alleged (1) massive fraud as he was never credited with any vote in the entire district except in less than a dozen precincts in Las Piñas and a few precincts in Muntinlupa where he got one (1) vote each resulting in his having only a few votes since the votes intended for him were credited to other candidates and/or deliberately omitted; (2) falsified, incomplete election returns, or returns contained material defects, or appeared to be tampered with or are not authentic; (3) the zero votes he received in more than 907 precincts in Las Piñas and Muntinlupa is not only statistically improbable but inherently impossible because of his stature as a judge who is loved by the people of the said municipalities; (4) irregularities in the conduct of canvassing; and (5) massive vote-buying.chanrobles virtual law library

Likewise on May 14,1987, another candidate Lucina Teodoro filed with the Comelec a petition docketed as SPC 87-197 to suspend the canvass in Las Piñas Muntinlupa congressional district, to declare the creation of the sub-board of canvassers illegal, to exclude the contested returns from the canvass, and to re-canvass the returns previously canvassed by the sub-board of canvassers.chanrobles virtual law library

On a motion to dismiss filed by intervenor Filemon C. Aguilar, another congressional candidate, the Comelec (second Division), after a joint trial of the two (2) petitions upon agreement of Teodoro and Allarde in the hearing of May 19, 1987, issued the questioned order on July 13, 1987 dismissing the petitions in SPC Nos. 87-197 and 87-201 and lifted the restraining order issued by the Comelec for the suspension of the proclamation of the winning candidate and ordered the Board of Canvassers to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming the winning candidate in the Congressional District of Las Piñas Muntinlupa.chanrobles virtual law library

On July 20, 1987, petitioner Allarde filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the order of the Comelec (Second Division), dated July 7, 1987, stating therein, that the dismissal of his petitions in SPC No. 87-201 together with that of Teodoro in SPC No. 87-197 violated Es right to due process of law for lack of notice and hearing considering that the two (2) cases were not consolidated in accordance with Rule 31, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and that he was never an intervenor in SPC No. 87-201. The motion was heard by the Comelec (En Banc) on July 28, 1987. Petitioner Allarde then moved on September 8, 1987 and October 28, 1987 for an early resolution of his motion for reconsideration and clarification.chanrobles virtual law library

On December 7, 1987, the Comelec (En Banc) promulgated the questioned decision which dismissed Allarde's petition and all his motions in SPC No. 87- 201.chanrobles virtual law library

Hence, this petition.chanrobles virtual law library

After considering the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition as well as the comment thereon by respondents, the Court finds that respondent Commission on Elections did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order of July 13, 1987 and the en banc decision of December 7, 1987. Records of the case reveal that the procedural objections of petitioner in support of his allegation of denial of his right to due process of law were painstakingly discussed by the Comelec in the questioned decision of December 7, 1987.chanrobles virtual law library

It is apparent from the records of the case that the other grounds relied upon by petitioner in seeking relief from the Comelec, i.e. massive fraud resulting in his having been credited zero votes when the votes intended for him were credited to other candidates and/or deliberately omitted; massive vote-buying, are proper grounds for an election protest which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal and are not the proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. While it is true that the other grounds cited by petitioner, i.e. election returns which were falsified, incomplete, or contain material defects, or appear to be tampered with or are not authentic copies, are proper grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, the reliefs sought cannot nevertheless be granted considering that during the canvassing of the election returns, petitioner admittedly did not raise his objections against the election returns before the Board of Canvassers of Las Piñas Muntinlupa District which is an essential mandatory pre-requisite under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code (Espaldon vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 78987, August 25,1987). The procedural short-cut undertaken by petitioner in elevating to the Comelec his belated objections to the election returns is not sanctioned by Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code.chanrobles virtual law library

Besides, as reaffirmed by the Court in Robles vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 79847, December 17,1987, "the Court has consistently maintained that election returns of certain precincts may only be excluded and set aside at the cost of disenfranchising the voters only on the clearest and compelling showing of their nullity." Petitioner failed to establish such essential requisite in this petition.chanrobles virtual law library

Furthermore, considering that private respondent Filemon C. Aguilar had already been proclaimed the winner in the May 11, 1987 election for congressman in the District of Las Piñas Muntinlupa and had taken his oath and assumed the office in question on July 27, 1987 so that a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable (Syjuco vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 78928, July 16, 1987; Espaldon vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 78987, August 25,1987; Alberto vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 79278, August 27,1987; Andanar vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 79203, September 1, 1987); and considering that the grounds relied upon by petitioner are proper grounds for a timely election protest, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit, without prejudice to petitioner's filing the appropriate electoral protest before the House Electoral Tribunal.