[G.R. No. 140116-18. August 29, 2000]

ANDRES A. URBIZTONDO vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 29 2000.

G.R. No. 140116-18 (Andres A. Urbiztondo vs. Commission on Elections and Gavino P. Germo.)

Petitioner Andres A. Urbiztondo and private respondent Gavino P. Germo were among the candidates for the position of sangguniang bayan member in the municipality of Barobo, Surigao del Sur during the May 11, 1998 elections. On May 13, 1998, the winning candidates were proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Barobo based on an erroneous tabulation of votes, in that, the statement of votes (SOV) for Precinct No. 68-A showed private respondent as having garnered twenty-three (23) votes only when he should have fifty-three (53) votes as reflected in the taras and in the election returns. Consequently, petitioner was declared as one of the winning candidates with four thousand eight hundred forty (4,840) votes over private respondent who was ranked 9th with four thousand eight hundred twenty-six (4,826) votes.

On June 14, 1998, private respondent informed the chairman of the MBC of the discrepancy he discovered.

On June 17, 1998, private respondent filed a petition for preliminary injunction with prayer for (a) issuance of a restraining order, (b) payment of damages and attorney's fees, and (c) correction of error in the tabulation of votes, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lianga, Surigao del Sur. On the same date, he also filed a verified petition for correction of error in the tabulation or tallying of results with the MBC.

The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the issues raised therein were proper for a pre-proclamation contest, hence, it is the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which has jurisdiction. On its part, the MBC forwarded private respondent's verified petition for correction to the COMELEC. On July 4, 1998, the COMELEC received the petition and docketed the same as Ref. No. 98-176.

On June 26, 1998, the MBC filed its own sworn petition to the COMELEC seeking authority (a) to correct the erroneous tabulation in the SOV, (b) to set aside petitioner's proclamation and (c) to proclaim private respondent winner for the position of 8th sangguniang bayan member of Barobo, Surigao del Sur. The petition was docketed as SPC No. 98-289.

Not knowing that the petition for correction he filed with the MBC was forwarded to the COMELEC by the former, private respondent filed a petition for correction with the Commission on August 27, 1998 which was docketed as Ref. No. 98-185.

After consolidating and hearing the three petitions, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution on October 5, 1999 which dispositively reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prayers for correction of SOV and Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation are granted. The MBC of Barobo, Surigao del Sur is hereby authorized to do the necessary corrections in the SOV (Serial #0 10523) changing the votes of petitioner Germo in precinct 68A from twenty three to fifty three, the sub total therein from one thousand five hundred seven to one thousand five hundred thirty seven, and his grand total in SOV with serial #010528 of four thousand eight hundred twenty six (4,826) be increased to four thousand eight hundred fifty six (4,856); and the grand total of votes of respondent from four thousand eight hundred forty to four thousand eight hundred thirty (4,830). Considering that Germo won by twenty six (26) votes against respondent Urbiztondo, the proclamation of Andres Urbiztondo by the MBC of Barobo last 13 May 1998 is hereby declared null and void ab initio. Respondent Andres Urbiztondo is ordered to cease and desist from performing the functions of Sangguniang Bayan Member. The MBC of Barobo is hereby directed to reconvene on the sixth (6th) day from the time this Resolution is promulgated giving prior notice to the parties to effect the necessary corrections and proclaim petitioner Gavino Germo as the eighth (8th) winning candidate for Sangguniang Bayan Member of Barobo, Surigao del Sur.

Let the Deputy Executive Director for Operations of this Commission implement this Resolution with dispatch. A copy of this Resolution shall be served on the Mayor of Barobo, Vice Mayor as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan of Barobo, PNP Provincial Director of Surigao del Sur and the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government.

SO ORDERED. 1 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

The pivotal issue to be resolved here is whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of private respondent's petition for correction of the error in the tabulation of votes despite having been filed beyond the 5-day period prescribed by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and thereafter, in annulling petitioner's proclamation as the 8th winner for the position of sangguniang bayan member of Barobo, Surigao del Sur and directing the MBC to proclaim private respondent in his stead.

The petition lacks merit.

A petition to correct manifest errors in tabulation under Section 5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, even if filed out of time, may be considered by the COMELEC so long as the same is based on substantial grounds. The petitions of the private respondent and the MBC with the COMELEC merely involves the correction of a manifest error in the addition of the votes received by private respondent in Precinct No. 68-A. Private respondent was credited with only twenty-three (23) votes in the SOV when he should have been credited with fifty-three (53) votes as reflected in the taras and in the election returns. Surely, the correction of said mathematical error is more paramount than the technical requirement of filing a petition for the correction of a manifest error within the prescribed period by the rules.

In Bince, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 2 242 SCRA 273 (1995).we held that a petition to correct manifest errors, even if filed out of time, may be considered so as not to thwart the proper determination and resolution of the case on substantial grounds. Thus:

Adherence to a technicality that would put a stamp of validity on a palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will cannot be countenanced. In Benito v. COMELEC, we categorically declared that:

x x x Adjudication of cases on substantive merits and not on technicalities has been consistently observed by this Court. In the case of Juliano vs. Court of Appeals (20 SCRA 808) cited in Duremdes vs. Commission on Elections (178 SCRA 764), this Court had the occasion to declare that:

Well-settled is the doctrine that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. And also settled is the rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections (Gardiner v. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521; Galang v. Miranda, 35 Phil. 269; Jalandoni v. Sarcon, G.R. No. L-6496, January 27, 1962; Macasunding v. Macalanang, G.R. No. L-22779, March 31, 1965; Cauton v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-25467, April 27, 1967). In an election case the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the electorate. (Ibasco v. Ilao, G.R. No. L-17512, December 29, 1960). x x x (Juliano vs. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 818-819).

In the later case of Rodriguez vs. Commission on Elections (119 SCRA 465), this doctrine was reiterated and the Court went on to state that:

Since the early case of Gardiner v. Rornulo (26 Phil. 521), this Court has made it clear that it frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results. This bent or disposition continues to the present. (Id., at 474).

The same principle still holds true today. Technicalities of the legal rules enunciated in the election laws should not frustrate the determination of the popular will. 3 Id., at 286-287.

Since the allowance of the correction necessitates the annulment of the proclamation of the petitioner on account of a wrong tabulation of the total number of votes received, the COMELEC was correct in annulling the proclamation of petitioner and in directing the MBC to reconvene and proclaim private respondent winner of the elections. We have repeatedly held that a proclamation based on a faulty tabulation of votes through a simple mathematical mistake is void from the beginning. It is as if there is no proclamation to speak of. Here, it is extant from the records that a mistake was committed in adding the total number of votes for the private respondent. As correctly held by the COMELEC:

The proclamation of respondent in the instant case was based on erroneous tabulation and summation of votes not reflecting the true results of the election. The error committed was in the mechanical copying of the votes from the election returns to the SOV with regards to petitioner's votes in precinct 68A and the summing of all the sub-totals of votes garnered by respondent in the SOV where his incorrect grand total is reflected. Having been based on erroneous computation, his proclamation was no proclamation at all. It was void from the beginning. In the 1997 cases of Torres vs. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 583; and Ramirez vs. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 590, the Supreme Court declared that a candidate's proclamation based on an erroneous tabulation of votes is null and void, and when the proclamation is no proclamation at all, the Commission is not barred from inquiring into its nullity and the candidate cannot deprive it of its power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. Also, in the case of Duremdes vs. COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746, the Supreme Court held that such power of the Commission may be exercised even if the erroneously proclaimed candidate has already assumed office. 4 Rollo, p. 22.

Finally, it is of no moment that private respondent's petition before the COMELEC did not comply with this Court's Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring that a petition be accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping. In Bince v. COMELEC, 5 Supra .we held that laws and rules governing election controversies should be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Adherence to technicalities that would put a stamp of validity on a palpably void proclamation with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will cannot be countenanced. Election laws should give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the electorate. 6 Bautista v. COMELEC, 298 SCRA 480 [1998].

ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com