ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143318. December 5, 2000]

MALLARI vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 5 2000.

G.R. No. 143318 (Manuel B. Mallari vs. Commission on Elections, Hon. Augustus C. Diaz, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila, Branch 37, Quezon City, and Manuel D. Mallillin.)

Petitioner Manuel B. Mallari and private respondent Manuel D. Mallillin were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in Barangay Veterans Village, Quezon City in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections.

Petitioner garnered 1,265 votes while private respondent got 1,242 votes. Consequently, petitioner was proclaimed by the Barangay Board of Canvassers (BBC) as the duly elected punong barangay.

Private respondent filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37 challenging the results in seven (7) precincts, namely, precinct nos. 170, 171, 174, 177, 178 and 184.

After a revision of the contested ballots, the trial court rendered a decision dated February 25, 1998 reversing the BBC and declaring private respondent winner with a margin of only 35 votes over petitioner.

Petitioner filed an appeal to the COMELEC which was docketed as EAC No. 38-98. The First Division of the COMELEC affirmed the decision of the trial court on February 24, 1999, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission (FIRST DIVISION) DISMISSES the Appeal for lack of merit. The decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37, Quezon City declaring Manuel Mallillin as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Veterans Village, Quezon City, is AFFIRMED with modification in that the plurality is only by 19 and not 35 votes. Upon the finality of this decision, let the records of this case be remanded to the Court of origin for appropriate action.

SO ORDERED. ¹ Rollo, pp. 46-47.

On March 1, 1999, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision.

On June 1, 2000, the COMELEC en banc denied the motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner raises the same issues he ventilated before the COMELEC and which issues were discussed exhaustively and resolved authoritatively by the Commission.

Petitioner contends that the ballot box in Precinct 174 was tampered with and that it was grave abuse of discretion for both the trial court and the COMELEC to have relied on physical count of the ballots found therein. He maintains that they should have based their rulings on the election returns in determining the correct number of votes for each candidate.

The COMELEC, on its part, found and ruled that petitioner "miserably failed to prove or substantiate by any evidence his allegation of tampering."

We agree with the COMELEC.

The existence or absence of tampering of a ballot box is a question of fact which only the COMELEC, by virtue of its specialized functions, is in a position to appreciate and determine, such that whatever finding it makes will be accorded great weight by the courts. In Ocampo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136282 and Ocampo v. Salalila, G.R. No. 137470, February 15, 2000, the Court held that:

It must be borne in mind that we are persuaded strongly by the principle that the findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed. The COMELEC, as an administrative agency and a specialized constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall, has more than enough expertise in its field that its findings or conclusions are generally respected and even given finality.

Absent showing that the COMELEC acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the Court will respect its finding that the ballot box in Precinct 174 has not been affected by any irregularity.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, 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