EN BANC
FELIX BAROT,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
149147
June 18, 2003
-versus-
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONSCITY BOARD
OF
CANVASSERS
OF TANJAY CITY
AND
ROLANDO TABALOC,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before this court is a
Petition for
Certiorari and
Prohibition with prayer for Temporary
Restraining
Order under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set
aside the August 3, 2001 En Banc Resolution of the Commission on
Elections
(COMELEC) in SPC No. 01-195.
Felix Barot (petitioner)
and Rolando Tabaloc (private respondent) were candidates for councilor
of Tanjay City, Negros Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections.[1]
On May 17, 2001, the
Board of Canvassers (BOC) of Tanjay City proclaimed the winning
candidates
for mayor, vice-mayor, and ten councilors including petitioner who was
proclaimed the 10th.[2]
On May 29, 2001, BOC
Chair Erlinda H. Nochefranca sent a Memorandum[3] to the COMELEC En
Banc
requesting for authority to correct the erroneous entries in the
Certificate
of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates,[4] and
to proclaim private respondent in place of petitioner. In said
Memorandum,
Nochefranca alleged that the erroneous entries were made due to
oversight
as a result of which votes for some candidates for mayor down to the
city
councilors were increased and petitioner was inadvertently proclaimed
as
the 10th winning member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod when it should
have
been private respondent who actually received more votes than
petitioner.cralaw:red
Attached to the Memorandum
was a Sworn Statement[5] executed by Assistant City Treasurer Virginia
C. Reyes who was the tabulator of the BOC wherein she alleged that in
the
course of transferring the entries from the Statement of Votes to the
Summary
of Votes, she erred "by copying the grand totals instead of the
subtotals
per page," thus overstating several entries appearing in the Summary of
Votes.cralaw:red
The COMELEC, which docketed
the Memorandum of Nochefranca as SPC No. 01-195 (the petition), set it
for hearing on June 13, 25 and 27, 2001 during which the members of the
BOC presented evidence. No appearance was made by or for
petitioner.
The COMELEC thereafter required the candidates to file their respective
comments to the petition.[6]
Petitioner subsequently
filed an opposition[7] to the petition on the following grounds:
1.
This Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction to rule on this Petition
because it was filed outside the mandatory periods for filing petitions
of this nature and that there is no proof that proper filing and
docketing
fees have been paid.cralaw:red
2.
The petitioner is not a proper party in filing this petition. The
filing
of this petition does not speak well of what the COMELEC stands for
which
is an impartial body and does not side any candidate or party.cralaw:red
3.
The correction of manifest errors is proper only before proclamation of
a winning candidate[;] after proclamation[,] the proper action is an
election
protest.[8]
By the assailed Resolution
of August 3, 2001,[9] the COMELEC En Banc granted the petition and
disposed
as follows:
WHEREFORE, the premises
considered, this Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to GRANT
the
instant petition requesting for authority to correct erroneous entries
in the certificate of canvass of votes and proclamation of winning
candidates
for city offices in the City of Tanjay, Negros Oriental. The
proclamation
of herein respondent FELIX BAROT as the tenth (10th) winning candidate
for the position of Member of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tanjay City is
hereby ordered SUSPENDED and/or if one has already been made, the same
is hereby ordered ANNULED.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, the City
Board of Canvassers of Tanjay City is hereby directed to RECONVENE and
effect the necessary corrections in the Certificates of Canvass and
Proclamation
of Winning Candidates in the City of Tanjay and on the basis thereof
PROCLAIM
the winning candidates according to their ranks.
nderscoring
supplied)
Hence, the present petition
upon the following grounds:
1.
The respondent COMELEC denied the petitioner his day in Court when it
railroaded
the hearing of the case in the Commission a quo. While it gave the
petitioner
the opportunity to be heard, the observance of due process was but a
farce
and diluted exercise.cralaw:red
2.
This COMELEC had no jurisdiction to rule on the Petition filed by the
City
Board of Canvassers of Tanjay City because it was filed outside the
mandatory
periods for filing petitions of this nature and that there is no proof
that proper filing and docketing fees have been paid.cralaw:red
3.
The respondent City Board of Canvassers of Tanjay City is not a proper
party in filing the original petition before the COMELEC. The filing of
the petition [SPC-01-195] does not speak well of what the COMELEC
stands
for, which is an impartial body and does not side with any candidate or
party.cralaw:red
4.
The correction of manifest errors is proper only before proclamation of
a winning candidate[;] after proclamation[,] the proper action is an
election
contest.cralaw:red
5.
The private respondent Rolando Tabaloc has filed an Election Protest
now
docketed as EPC NO. 2001-51, this change of position of respondent
Tabaloc
should be construed as a tacit recognition of the due election of your
petitioner Felix Barot.[10]
By Resolution of August
21, 2001, this Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order[11]
enjoining
the COMELEC and the BOC to cease and desist from implementing the
assailed
COMELEC Resolution of August 3, 2001.cralaw:red
In the present petition,
petitioner posits that as the dates of hearing of the petition
scheduled
by the COMELEC were "too successive in nature without taking into
account
that petitioner comes from the province," he was denied due process,
and
had he been given his day, he would have proven his detractors
wrong.[12]
And petitioner maintains
that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over the petition as it was filed
beyond the reglementary period. For, so petitioner contends, since the
proclamation was made on May 17, 2001, the petition to correct manifest
error should have been filed within 5 days thereafter or a petition to
annul proclamation should have been filed within 10 days also
thereafter,
citing the case of Mentang v. Commission on Elections.[13]
In another vein, petitioner
posits that even if there were manifest errors in the Certificate of
Canvass
of Votes, correction should have been done before proclamation,[14] he
citing Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 3848 which provides:
SECTION 34. Manifest
Error. - (a) Where it is clearly shown before proclamation
that manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or the tallying
of
election returns, or certificates of canvass, during the canvassing,
the
Board may motu propio, or upon verified petition by any candidate,
political
party, organization or coalition of political parties, after due notice
and hearing, correct the errors committed.cralaw:red
There is manifest error
in the tabulation or tallying of the results during canvassing where:
1.
A copy of the Election Returns/Certificate of Canvass was tabulated
more
than once;
2.
Two or more copies of the Election Returns of one precinct, or two or
more
copies of Certificate of Canvass of one city or municipality were
tabulated;
3.
There was a mistake in the copying of the figures from the Election
Return/
Certificate of Canvass into the Statement of Votes;
4.
Election Returns from non-existent precincts were included in the
canvass
for another district; or
5.
There was a mistake in the addition of the votes of any candidate.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Finally, petitioner
posits that there is no proof that proper filing and docketing fees
were
paid, hence, the COMELEC did not acquire jurisdiction over the
petition,
and that Nochefranca is not among those who may file an action before
the
COMELEC, he citing Sections 2 and 3, Rule 5 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure[15]
which read:
Section 2. Who may be
parties. - Only natural or juridical persons or entities
duly
authorized by law, such as a voter, a candidate, or registered
political
parties, organization or coalition of political parties, including
parties
or organizations under the party list system, and any such person
permitted
by these Rules to bring an action or proceeding may be parties in any
action
or proceeding before the Commission.cralaw:red
Section 3. Parties in
Interest. - All actions filed with the Commission must be
prosecuted
and defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Italics in the
original)
The present petition
is bereft of merit.cralaw:red
As correctly argued
by the COMELEC, while petitioner was unable to attend the scheduled
hearings
of the petition, he was given the opportunity to file his comment
thereon
and he in fact filed an opposition thereto. Petitioner was thus
able
to air his side of the case.[16]
Due process does not
necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or
right
to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but
also
perhaps many times more creditably and predictable than oral argument,
through pleadings.cralaw:red
x x x
The essence of due process
is simply an opportunity to be heard or as applied to administrative
proceedings,
an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial type hearing
is
not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirements are
satisfied
when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain
their side of the controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is the
absolute
lack of notice or hearing.[17]
(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
As to the claim that
the petition was not filed within the reglementary period, it should be
noted that the 5-day period to file a petition for correction may be
done
after proclamation as provided under paragraph (b), Section 5, Rule 27
of the COMELEC Rules:
Section 5.
Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly with the
Commission.
-
x x x
(b)
If the petition involves the illegal composition or proceedings of the
board under subparagraph (1) of paragraph (a) above, it must be filed
immediately
when the board begins to act as such, or at the time of the appointment
of the member whose capacity to sit as such is objected to if it comes
after the canvassing of the board, or immediately at the point where
the
proceedings are or begin to be illegal.
If the petition is
for
correction, it must be filed not later than five (5) days following the
date of proclamation and must implead all candidates who may be
adversely
affected thereby.
x
x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
The petition may also
be
made before proclamation as provided in Section 34 of Resolution No.
3848
which furnishes instructions for the Municipal, City, District and
Provincial
Boards of Canvassers in connection with the May 14, 2001 national and
local
elections.
At all events, Section
4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules provides:
Section 4. Suspension
of the Rules. - In the interest of justice and in order to
obtain speedy disposition of all the matters pending before the
Commission,
these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
(Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The COMELEC thus has
the discretion to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the
interest
of justice such that even if the petition was filed 12 days after the
proclamation,
the COMELEC may, in the interest of justice, disregard the reglementary
periods provided by the rules and resolve the matter filed before it.cralaw:red
As to the allegation
of lack of proof of proper payment of filing and docketing fees, the
COMELEC
Rules of Procedure provides:
Rule
40
- Fees and Charges
x
x x
Section 8. Where
fees
are to be paid. - The fees herein before provided shall be
paid by the party concerned to the Cash Division, Administrative
Services
Department of the Commission, at the time of request or demand. If the
fees are not paid, the Commission may refuse to take action thereon
until
they are paid. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
From the
immediately-quoted
COMELEC Rule, even assuming arguendo that the required fees were not
paid,
the COMELEC has the discretion to take action or not in a case.
But
even if it was not afforded such discretion, as discussed above, it can
suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
On the claim that the
petition was not filed by the proper party, the same does not
lie.
For under the earlier-quoted Section 34 of Resolution No. 3848, the BOC
may even motu propio, after due notice and hearing, correct errors
committed
in the tabulation. What should prevent it from itself filing the
petition for correction before the COMELEC?
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order
issued on August 21, 2001 is hereby LIFTED. The COMELEC and the City
Board
of Canvassers of Tanjay City are hereby DIRECTED to implement COMELEC
En
Banc Resolution dated August 3, 2001 issued in SPC No. 01-195.cralaw:red
Costs against petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 4-5.
[2]
Id. at 21.
[3]
Id. at 22-23.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
COMELEC Records at 5-7.
[6]
Rollo at 117.
[7]
COMELEC Records at 76-83.
[8]
Id. at 77.
[9]
Id. at 124-135.
[10]
Rollo at 7-8.
[11]
Id. at 81-82.
[12]
Id. at 8.
[13]
229 SCRA 666 (1994).
[14]
Rollo at 9-11.
[15]
Id. at 11-12.
[16]
Id. at 120.
[17]
Trinidad v. COMELEC, 315 SCRA 175 (1999) citing Paat v. Court of
Appeals,
266 SCRA 167 (1997). |