ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 167101. September 12, 2006]

MANUEL A. ALEJANDRO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 12, 2006

G.R. No. 167101 (Manuel A. Alejandro v. Commission on Elections, et al.)

Petitioner Manuel A. Alejandro seeks the reconsideration of the Court en banc's Decision dated January 31, 2006 affirming the resolutions of the Commission on Elections in SPC No. 04-195 which directed the election officer of Alicia, Isabela to reconvene the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) for the purpose of correcting the errors committed in the tallying of votes for the vice-mayoralty race in the said municipality and to proclaim the rightful winner therein.

To recall, petitioner Alejandro, and private respondent Damian L. Co were rival candidates for Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Alicia, Isabela during the May 10, 2004 national and local elections. The petitioner was initially proclaimed by the MBC as the duly-elected Vice-Mayor on May 13, 2004. However, upon petition by private respondent Co, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division found that errors were committed in the copying of the results from the election returns to the statement of votes. It found that the statement of votes did not match the entries made in the election returns. Accordingly, it directed the election officer of Alicia, Isabela to reconvene the MBC for the purpose of correcting the errors committed in the tallying of votes for the vice-mayoralty position in the said Municipality.

In compliance therewith, on December 8, 2004, the said MBC reconvened and proceeded to rectify the said errors and, subsequently, proclaimed private respondent Co as the duly-elected Vice-Mayor.

In the assailed Resolution dated February 22, 2005, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the Second Division's resolution directing the election officer to reconvene the MBC. It likewise directed the MBC to determine and proclaim the rightful winner.

In the Decision dated January 31, 2006 now sought to be reconsidered, the Court affirmed the assailed COMELEC resolution. The Court held that, as correctly found by the COMELEC, private respondent Co's petition for annulment was filed within the reglementary period to file the same and that even if it was denominated as also one for correction of manifest errors, the COMELEC properly treated the same as one for annulment of proclamation. ^[1] cralaw

On the matter of whether or not manifest errors were committed in the tallying of votes from the election returns to the statement of votes, the Court held that the findings of the COMELEC that there had been such errors are accorded respect as they are supported by substantial evidence. Significantly, election officer Teresita B. Angangan herself, in her answer submitted to the COMELEC, admitted to the commission of errors in the preparation of the statement of votes.

The petitioner's claim of denial of due process when the COMELEC did not conduct a hearing for the examination of the disputed election documents was given scant consideration since the records showed that he participated in the proceedings before the MBC. Further, he also sought the reconsideration of the COMELEC Second Division and the issues that he raised in his motion were extensively passed upon by the COMELEC en banc.

Finally, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in directing the MBC to reconvene to rectify the errors it committed in tallying the votes for the vice-mayoralty race of Alicia, Isabela considering that there was no controversy that discrepancies existed in the statement of votes and the election returns, and that any error in the statement of votes would affect the proclamation made on the basis thereof.

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner Alejandro now contends that the election returns of at least 39 out of 156 precincts contained manifest errors and that the MBC, when it reconvened on December 8, 2004, made no corrections with respect to these errors which benefited private respondent Co. The errors consisted in, among others, the discrepancies in the votes of the candidates in taras as against their votes in words and figures in the same returns.

The petitioner maintains that he was denied due process as he was deprived of the opportunity to raise the issues concerning the manifest errors in the election returns since the COMELEC Second Division, the COMELEC en banc, and the MBC, did not bother to go beyond the votes in words and figures, and did not countercheck the same with the taras .

He likewise insists that his filing of his motion for reconsideration should have the effect of suspending the reconvening of the MBC. He was not allegedly notified in advance of the date of promulgation of the assailed resolution. Hence, the five day period to file the motion for reconsideration should have been reckoned from the date of his receipt of the assailed resolution and not from the date of its promulgation.

The petitioner insists that, contrary to the stance taken by the COMELEC, the case does not involve a simple problem of arithmetic. He avers that the errors did not simply consist in the transposition of the votes from the election returns to the statement of votes. Rather, allegedly involved are manifest errors where private respondent Co was unlawfully credited with more votes and the petitioner was illegally credited with less. The taras are not allegedly consistent with the votes in words and figures as stated in the election returns.

The petitioner thus urges the Court to reconsider its Decision dated January 31, 2006 and confirm his proclamation as the duly elected vice-mayor of Alicia, Isabela. In the alternative, he prays for the case to be remanded to the COMELEC for identification and correction of manifest errors found in all the election returns.

The Court finds no cogent reason to reconsider the Decision dated January 31, 2006.

The crux of the petitioner's motion is his allegation that there are manifest errors in the election returns consisting in the discrepancies in the votes as reflected in the taras and those reflected in words and figures. It is significant to note that such allegation was not raised by the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration filed with the COMELEC en banc. Neither did he raise this matter in his petition or memorandum filed with the Court. It is only now in his motion for reconsideration that he alleges that such manifest errors are contained in the election returns of 39 out of 156 precincts.

In fact, as one of the grounds in support of his petition, the petitioner alleged that:

D. THE COMELEC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ASSUMED THAT THERE WERE MANIFEST ERRORS TO CORRECT DESPITE THE LACK OF ANY COMPETENT PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF MANIFEST ERRORS ^[2] cralaw

This ground was reiterated by the petitioner in his memorandum where he likewise stated that "[a]side from the bare allegations of CO in his COMELEC petition, there was no evidence whatsoever of alleged manifest errors." ^[3] cralaw

The petitioner has clearly changed his theory of the case as he now hinges his motion for reconsideration on the existence of alleged manifest errors in certain election returns. The Court cannot countenance such tack adopted by the petitioner at this belated stage. It is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal. ^[4] cralaw

In any case, the question of whether or not manifest errors are contained in the election returns and/or the statement of votes involves a factual determination. In this case, the COMELEC Second Division and COMELEC en banc made no finding as to the existence of manifest errors in the election returns as claimed by the petitioner. Rather, the COMELEC Second Division and en banc have found that the manifest errors consisted in the tabulation of the votes from the election returns to the statement of votes. They based their findings on, among others, the admission of the election officer herself that such errors were indeed committed. This factual finding of the COMELEC, which is supported by substantial evidence, is binding on the Court. ^[5] cralaw

Contrary to the stance taken by petitioner Alejandro, his filing of a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division did not ipso facto have the effect of suspending the execution of the latter as the same was defective. Not only was his motion filed beyond the five-day reglementary period to file the same, the filing fee therefore was paid way beyond the said period. His motion should have been dismissed outright for failure to pay the filing fee on time. Failure to pay filing fees will not vest the election tribunal jurisdiction over the case and such procedural lapse warrants the outright dismissal of the action. ^[6] cralaw

All told, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the election officer of Alicia, Isabela to reconvene the MBC for the purpose of correcting the errors committed in tallying the votes for the vice-mayoralty race in the said municipality and to proclaim the rightful winner therein.

WHEREFORE, petitioner Manuel A. Alejandro's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 30-31.

^[2] cralaw Petition, p. 37; rollo , p. 39.

^[3] cralaw Memorandum, p. 43; rollo , p. 698.

^[4] cralaw Manila Electric Company v. Benamira , G.R. No. 145271, July 14, 2005, 463 SCRA 331.

^[5] cralaw Baddiri v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 165677, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 808.

^[6] cralaw Banaga , Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 391 Phil. 596, 605 (2000).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011