ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 163223-24. May 18, 2004]

SAMAUNA vs. THE BOARD OF ELECTION TELLERS OF PRECINCT NOS. 18A/19A

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 18 2004 .

G.R. Nos. 163223-24 (Sultan Sumirado Samauna, et al. vs. The Board of Election Tellers of Precinct Nos. 18A/19A and 20A, The Municipal Election Officer, Lumba Bayabao, Lanao Del Sur, et al.)

On July 24 and 30, 2002, petitioners filed before the Commission on Elections two petitions for declaration of failure of the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections in Barangay Calilangan, Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur. In one breath, they alleged that no such elections were held on July 15, 2002 because election paraphernalia were not delivered at the polling place and the Municipal Accountant had made the announcement that the elections were postponed. But in another, they averred that there were discrepancies between the Minutes of the Voting and Counting of Votes and the Certificate of Proclamation as regards the number of votes cast and that the signatures of the members of the Board of Election Tellers (BET) were forged. Petitioners attached affidavits executed by alleged disenfranchised voters and candidates stating that no such elections were held in the barangay. The petitions were consolidated.

On March 12, 2004, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution dismissing the petitions. The poll body held that the grounds raised by petitioners are not proper for declaring failure of elections but rather for an election protest. The report of the COMELEC's Election Records and Statistics Division shows that an election was held in the barangay and private respondent Cairoden U. Adap was proclaimed as the winning Punong Barangay. The evidence presented by petitioners was found to be insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity. The mere fact that there was a discrepancy in the figures in the Minutes of the Voting and in the Certificate of Proclamation, according to the COMELEC, does not establish a total absence of elections. The discrepancy in the signatures of the BET was not sufficient for the COMELEC to conclude that there was failure of elections, either. The affidavits could also not be considered as they were not corroborated by oral testimony during trial.

Not satisfied with the Resolution, petitioners filed with this Court the present Consolidated Notice of Appeal, the pertinent portions of which read, thus:

Petitioners, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines, hereby appeal the consolidated resolution dated March 12, 2004 dismissing the petitions in the above-entitled cases. Copy of which was received by the undersigned counsel on March 24, 2004 on both questions of facts and laws.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila for consideration of the above-entitled cases for its review and proper disposition.

The Consolidated Notice of Appeal should be dismissed. The mode by which the decision, order or ruling of the Commission may be brought before this Court is by a petition either under Rule 64 or Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, depending on the ground or grounds interposed. Both Rules mandate the form and contents of the petitions they respectively cover. Failure to comply with any of the requirements constitutes sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. The Consolidated Notice of Appeal is definitely the wrong mode of review. Clearly also, it does not comply with the required form and contents.

WHEREFORE, this case is DISMISSED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., on official leave.

Puno, J. on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Acting Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE