EN BANC
LORETTA P. DE LA
LLANA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
152080
November 28, 2003
-versus-
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
AND RIZALINO F.
PABLO, JR.,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
At bar is a Petition
for Certiorari[1]
with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order seeking to set aside the
Resolution[2]
dated February 19, 2002 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En
Banc
in EPC Case No. 2001-6. The assailed Resolution affirmed the September
5, 2001 Resolution[3]
of the COMELEC First Division (1) granting the petition of respondent
Rizalino
F. Pablo,. Jr. for correction of manifest errors in the Statement of
Votes
cast in Precinct No. 92-A-1 at Castillejos, Zambales; and (2) annulling
the proclamation of herein petitioner Loretta P. Dela Llana as third
member
of the Provincial Board, First District of same province, due to the
erroneous
and/or incomplete canvass of election returns.
The antecedent facts
are:
In the May 14, 2001
elections, petitioner Loretta Dela Llana and respondent Rizalino Pablo,
Jr. were among the candidates for Provincial Board Member, First
District
of Zambales. The First District, which comprised the municipalities of
Subic, Castillejos and San Marcelino, is allotted three (3) seats in
the
Provincial Board.cralaw:red
On May 18, 2001, the
Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed the three (3) winning
candidates.
Included was herein petitioner, being the third duly elected member of
the Provincial Board. They obtained the following votes:
1. Jose de
Jesus Gutierrez, Sr. - 22,926
2. Wilfredo Viloria
Felarca
- 14,458
3. Loreta Panlilio
Dela Llana
-
14,117[4]
Respondent ranked
fourth,
having garnered a total of 14,093 votes,[5]
or 24 votes less than that obtained by petitioner.
Contesting the election
and proclamation of petitioner, respondent, on May 25, 2001, initially
filed with the Electoral Contest Adjudication Department, COMELEC, an
election
protest[7]
docketed as EPC Case No. 2001-6. Respondent alleged that when the
Municipal
Board of Canvassers for the Municipality of Castillejos
(MBC-Castillejos)
canvassed the election returns from various precincts, the 42 votes he
obtained in Precinct No. 29-A-1 was altered and reduced to only 4.
Thus,
he lost 38 votes. This 4 votes appeared in the Statement of Votes by
Precinct
(Statement No. 2114713[7]).
When the Zambales Provincial Board of Canvassers canvassed the
Certificates
of Canvass of Votes from the three municipalities in the First
District,
respondent's total votes were recorded only as 14,093, instead of
14,131
(14,093 + 38) votes. The missing 38 votes, if counted in his favor,
would
have been sufficient to have him proclaimed the third member of the
Provincial
Board of the First District of Zambales.cralaw:red
Petitioner, in her answer
with counter-protest,[8]
denied respondent's allegations. By way of special and affirmative
defenses,
petitioner alleged inter alia that respondent, "who was then an
incumbent
member of the Provincial Board of Zambales, has exercised his influence
in all the precincts in San Marcelino, Zambales, thereby crediting him
with more votes than he actually received." Petitioner thus prayed that
"the results in all the precincts numbering 77 in San Marcelino must
likewise
be put under protest."
In Reply,[9]
respondent maintained that petitioner's allegations and counter-protest
are based on mere speculation, devoid of any proof.cralaw:red
The case, which was
assigned to the First Division, was set for hearing on July 16, 2001 to
determine "the issue of accuracy of the entries in the Statement of
Votes
in the questioned Precinct No. 29-A-1."[10]
At the start of the
hearing on July 16, 2001,[11]
the COMELEC First Division, through Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra,
declared that it is treating the case as one for correction of manifest
errors committed in the Statement of Votes of Castillejos, Zambales;
and
that petitioner's counter-protest is still premature considering that
it
is not yet clear as to who between the parties really won in the
elections
in view of the pending petitions filed before the COMELEC, to wit: 1)
the
subject petition for correction of manifest errors; and 2) the petition
for the canvass of 5 uncanvassed precincts in Subic, Zambales pending
before
the Second Division, docketed as SPC No. 01-264."[12]
The presentation of
evidence then followed. Zosimo Remo, COMELEC Document Examiner,
presented
a copy of the Election Returns (ER) for Precinct No. 29-A-1 with Serial
No. 58040069. The counsel of both parties examined the ER showing that
the actual number of votes garnered by respondent is 41. Then, Vilma
Villegas,
COMELEC Records Officer, presented the Statement of Votes (SOV) with
Serial
No. 2114713 where Precinct No. 29-A-1 was entered. Again, the parties'
counsel examined the SOV which revealed that the votes credited to
respondent
in that precinct is only 4, instead of 41, or 37 votes less than what
was
actually garnered by him. Also presented during the hearing was the
Certificate
of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation (COCVP) of the winning candidates
which disclosed that respondent garnered a total of 14,117 votes in the
First District of Zambales.cralaw:red
After the marking of
exhibits presented during the July 16, 2001 hearing, the First Division
allowed the parties "to make their final manifestations," and for
"counsel
for both parties to submit the case for resolution."[13]
In its Resolution[14]
dated September 5, 2001, the COMELEC First Division, a) granted
respondent's
petition for the correction of manifest errors; b) directed the
Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Subic, Zambales to reconvene and effect the
necessary
corrections in the Statement of Votes by Precinct to reflect therein
the
actual number of votes obtained by respondent in Precinct No. 29-A-1;
c)
annulled petitioner's proclamation, being based on an erroneous and/or
incomplete canvass of election returns; and d) ordered petitioner to
immediately
vacate her post as the third member of the Provincial Board, First
District
of Zambales, and to cease and desist from discharging the duties and
functions
of that office.cralaw:red
In the same Resolution,
the First Division denied, for being premature, respondent's prayer
that
he be proclaimed the winning candidate for the questioned position.
This
is because of the fact that a petition for the canvass of the 5
uncanvassed
precincts in Subic, Zambales, docketed as SPC No. 01-264, is still
pending
resolution before the Second Division, and it is not yet clear who
between
the parties really won in the May 14, 2001 elections.cralaw:red
Surprisingly, despite
the fact that petitioner actively participated in the July 16, 2001
hearing,
she filed a motion for reconsideration[15]
of the September 5, 2001 Resolution, contending that the First Division
has no authority/jurisdiction to convert motu proprio respondent's
petition
into one for correction of manifest errors. She claimed that the First
Division acted with grave abuse of discretion.cralaw:red
In an Order[16]
dated September 19, 2001, the First Division certified and elevated the
entire records of the case to the COMELEC En Banc.cralaw:red
On February 19, 2002,
the COMELEC En Banc issued the assailed Resolution[17]
denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit and
affirming
the September 5, 2001 Resolution of the First Division. The En Banc
Resolution
partly reads:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"A comparison of
the
Election Return for Precinct No. 29-A-1 and of the Statement of Votes
by
Precinct for the Municipality of Castillejos shows that there was
indeed
a manifest error in the copying of the figures from the Election Return
to the Statement of Votes by Precinct. The forty-one (41) votes
garnered
by petitioner in Precinct No. 29-A-1, as canvassed by the MBC of
Castillejos,
was reduced to four (4) in the Statement of Votes by Precinct. Thus, it
is but right for this Commission to order the necessary correction in
order
to reflect the true will of the people of the Municipality of
Castillejos.
"WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to AFFIRM
the
Resolution dated 5 September 2001 rendered by the First Division of
this
Commission insofar as it:
1.
GRANTED
the instant petition of Rizalino F. Pablo, Jr. (now private respondent)
seeking for the correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes
of Castillejos, Zambales;
2. ANNULLED the
proclamation
of herein respondent Loretta P. Dela Llana (now petitioner) finding the
same to have been based on an erroneous and/or incomplete canvass of
election
returns;
3. ORDERED
respondent
Loretta P. Dela Llana to immediately vacate her post as the third
winning
Board Member of the First District of Zambales and to cease, desist and
refrain from discharging and performing its duties and functions; and
4. DENIED the
prayer
of petitioner Rizalino F. Pablo, Jr. that he be proclaimed as the real
winning candidate, for being premature. This is in view of the fact
that
the canvassing of the five (5) uncanvassed precincts in Subic, Zambales
pursuant to the Resolution rendered by the Second Division of this
Commission
in SPC No. 01-264 is still pending before the Municipal Board of
Canvassers
of Subic; thus, it is not clear yet as to who between the parties
really
won in the May 14, 2001 elections.
"ACCORDINGLY, this
Commission
En Banc DIRECTS, as it hereby DIRECTS:
1. the
Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Castillejos, Zambales to (i) RECONVENE and
effect
the necessary corrections in the Statement of Votes to reflect therein
the actual number of votes garnered by petitioner in Precinct No.
29-A-1;
and (ii) to SUBMIT the corrected Statement of Votes and Certificate of
Canvass for Provincial Officials to the Provincial Board of Canvassers
of Zambales; and
2. the
Provincial Board
of Canvassers of Zambales to (i) RECONVENE and CANVASS ANEW the
corrected
Certificates of Canvass to be submitted by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers
of Castillejos, Zambales and by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
Subic,
Zambales after the latter has finished canvassing the aforesaid five
(5)
uncanvassed precincts in Subic, pursuant to the Resolution rendered by
the Second Division of this Commission in SPC No. 01-264; and (ii)
PROCLAIM
the TRUE WINNING CANDIDATE for the disputed position of THIRD BOARD
MEMBER
OF THE FIRST DISTRICT OF ZAMBALES.
"SO ORDERED." (Emphasis
supplied.)
Hence, the present
recourse.
Petitioner contends
that the COMELEC EN BANC, in issuing its February 19, 2002 Resolution,
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
when it:
I
TREATED THE
PETITION
FOR ELECTION PROTEST FILED BY HEREIN RESPONDENT AS A CASE FOR
CORRECTION
OF MANIFEST ERRORS;
II
JUSTIFIED SUCH
CONVERSION
BY SUSPENDING ITS OWN RULES; and
III
DIRECTED THE
PROVINCIAL
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ZAMBALES TO (1) RECONVENE, (2) CANVASS ANEW THE
CORRECTED CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE MUNICIPAL
BOARD
OF CANVASSERS OF CASTILLEJOS, ZAMBALES, AND (3) PROCLAIM THE WINNING
CANDIDATE
FOR THE POSITION OF THIRD MEMBER OF THE PROVINCIAL BOARD, FIRST
DISTRICT,
ZAMBALES.[18]
Petitioner maintains
that
the COMELEC is without authority/jurisdiction to treat respondent's
petition
for election protest as a case for correction of manifest errors and
justify
such act by suspending its own Rules of Procedure. Even assuming it has
authority to do so, still such conversion is no longer possible because
respondent's questioned petition was filed beyond the reglementary
period.
Under Section 1, Rule 20 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, a petition for an election protest must be
filed
"within 10 ten days after the proclamation of the results of the
election,"
and under Section 5, Rule 27 of the same Rules, a petition for
correction
of manifest errors "must be filed not later than five (5) days
following
the date of proclamation." Since petitioner was proclaimed on May 18,
2001,
respondent should have filed his petition for correction of manifest
errors
within 5 days from said date, or on or before May 23, 2001. It was only
on May 25, 2001, or 2 days late, that he filed his petition with the
COMELEC.
In his comment[19]
on the petition, Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo disputed
petitioner's
theory and prayed that the instant petition be denied for lack of merit.cralaw:red
The petition must fail.cralaw:red
The Constitution
has vested to the COMELEC broad powers, involving not only the
enforcement
and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct
of elections, but also the resolution and determination of election
controversies.[20]
It also granted the COMELEC the power and authority to promulgate its
rules
of procedure, with the primary objective of ensuring the expeditious
disposition
of election cases.[21]
Concomitant to such
powers is the authority of the COMELEC to determine the true nature of
the cases filed before it. Thus, it examines the allegations of every
pleading
filed, obviously aware that in determining the nature of the complaint
or petition, its averments, rather than its title/caption, are the
proper
gauges.[22]
This was what the COMELEC
did when it treated respondent's questioned petition in EPC No. 2001-06
(captioned as an election protest) as a case for correction of manifest
errors. The COMELEC found that the averments therein actually call for
the rectification of apparent errors in the Statement of Votes in
Precinct
No. 29-A-1 of Castillejos, Zambales. The pertinent portions of
respondent's
petition read:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"9. Unknown to the
petitioner
(Rizalino F. Pablo, Jr., now respondent), when the election returns
from
the precincts of Castillejos were canvassed by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers,
the 42 votes obtained by the petitioner in Precinct No. 29-A-1 was
altered
and reduced to only 4 in the Statement of Votes by Precinct of the
Municipal
Board of Canvassers for the Municipality of Castillejos. A copy thereof
is attached hereto as Annexes 'F', 'F-1', 'F-2' and 'F-3'.
"10. Pertinently,
in
Statement No. 2114713 (Annex 'G-2') under the column of Precinct No.
29-A-1,
appears the altered figure '4' instead of the true and correct figure
'42'
recorded in the election return (Annex 'D') for the said precinct. It
is
the only single digit number of votes for petitioner appearing in the
Statement
of Votes by Precinct, in contrast to the double-digit numbers of votes
in all the other precincts.
"11. Due to the
aforementioned
reduction and the loss of 38 votes thereby, petitioner was erroneously
recorded by the Municipal Board of Canvassers to have obtained only
4,111
votes instead of the correct 4,149 votes in the municipality of
Castillejos.
A copy of the Certificate of Canvass of Votes (No. 1581410) is attached
hereto as Annex 'G'.
"12. Subsequently,
the
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Zambales canvassed the Certificates
of
Canvass of Votes from the three (3) municipalities of Subic,
Castillejos
and San Marcelino, and proclaimed the following results of the election
for Board Members in the First District as shown in the Statement of
Votes
(No. 4010026) attached hereto as Annex 'H', to wit:
Jose
D. Gutierrez
- 22,926
Wilfredo V.
Felarca
- 14,458
Loreta P. de la
Llana
- 14,117
Rizalino F.
Pablo,
Jr.
-
14,093
Pedro B.
Delgado
- 7,232
Enrique E.
Vega
- 4,502
Dyna P. de la
Llana
- 3,846
Christopher V.
Legaspi
- 2,038 x
x
x
x x
x
x x x"
Indeed, a reading
of respondent's petition reveals that what is being sought is the
correction
of the manifest errors committed in the Statement of Votes. In Trinidad
vs. COMELEC,[23]
we held that "correction of manifest errors has reference to errors in
the election returns, in the entries of the statement of votes by
precinct
per municipality, or in the certificate of canvass." Some of the
definitions
given for the word "manifest" are that "it is evident to the eye and
understanding;
visible to the eye; that which is open, palpable, and incontrovertible;
needing no evidence to make it more clear; not obscure or hidden."[24]
The fact that petitioner
prayed for annulment of respondent's proclamation in his petition is
immaterial
and does not change the nature of the instant petition. "The prayer in
a pleading does not constitute an essential part of the allegations
determinative
of the jurisdiction of a court. The question of jurisdiction depends
largely
upon the determination of the true nature of the action filed by a
party
which, in turn, involves the consideration of the ultimate facts
alleged
as constitutive of the cause of action therein (Bautista vs. Fernandez,
L-24062, April 30, 1971). The prayer for relief, although part of the
complaint,
cannot create a cause of action, hence it cannot be considered a part
of
the allegations on the nature of the cause of action (Rosales vs.
Reyes,
25 Phil. 495; Cabigao vs. Lim, 50 Phil. 844)."[25]
In any event, petitioner
is estopped from questioning the issue of jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Not only did she actively participate in the proceedings before the
First
Division, but she also sought affirmative relief by filing her Answer
with
Counter-Protest wherein she asked that "all the precincts in the 3
municipalities
in the First District be placed under protest."[26]
It is certainly not right for a party taking part in the proceedings
and
submitting his case for decision to attack the Decision later for lack
of jurisdiction of the tribunal because the decision turned out to be
adverse
to him.[27]
We likewise find unmeritorious
petitioner's contention that the COMELEC can no longer entertain
respondent's
petition because it was filed 2 days late.cralaw:red
It bears stressing that
in an election case, it is the primary duty of the COMELEC and the
courts
to ascertain by all means the will of the electorate. Thus, when the
COMELEC
treated respondent's petition as one for correction of manifest errors,
it was merely complying with its duty. Petitioner has put premium on
technicalities
over and above such noble duty. In Duremdes vs. COMELEC,[28]
we held that the determination of the true will of the electorate
should
be paramount, thus:
"Election
contests
involve public interest. 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
x x x Laws (and rules) 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.
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."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Instead of dismissing
the
petition for purely technical reasons, the COMELEC correctly considered
the merits thereof. In Tatlonghari vs. Commission on Elections,[29]
where a similar petition was filed 97 days from the date of
proclamation,
we held:
"The
argument
is devoid of merit. For one thing, records indicate that respondent's
assumption
of office was effected by a clerical error or simple mathematical
mistake
in the addition of votes and not through the legitimate will of the
electorate.
Thus, respondent's proclamation was flawed right from the very
beginning.
Having been based on a faulty tabulation, there can be no valid
proclamation
to speak of insofar as respondent Castillo is concerned. As this Court
once said:
'x x
x Time and again, this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle
that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation
which
was illegally made. The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed
office,
we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such power. It of course may
not be availed of where there has been a valid proclamation. Since
private
respondent's petition before the COMELEC is precisely directed at the
annulment
of the canvass and proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into this
issue
is within the area allocated by the Constitution and law to COMELEC. x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
'We have but to
reiterate
the oft-cited rule that the validity of a proclamation may be
challenged
even after the irregularly proclaimed candidate has assumed office. x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
'It is indeed true
that
after proclamation the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in an
election
is to be found in an election protest. But that is so only on the
assumption
that there has been a valid proclamation. Where as in the case at bar
the
proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office cannot in any
way affect the basic issues' (Aguam vs. Commission on Elections, 23
SCRA
883 [1968]; cited in Agbayani vs. Commission on Elections, 186 SCRA 484
[1990]).'
"In view of the
foregoing,
the Court deems it unnecessary to pass upon the timeliness of
petitioner's
motion for reconsideration before the respondent Commission. While
petitioner
might have been tardy in filing the same, this Court cannot declare
that
petitioner lost his right to a public office to which he was duly
elected
by a mere lapse of time, the length of which was not even the product
of
his own wrong doing."
In the same vein, we
ruled
in Bince, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections[30]
that:
"Assuming for the sake
of argument that the petition was filed out of time, this incident
alone
will not thwart the proper determination and resolution of the instant
case on substantial grounds. 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."
Thus, the COMELEC did
not act with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained respondent's
petition by suspending its own Rules of Procedure. This is clearly
allowed
under Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, which provides:
"Section 4.
Suspension of the Rules. — In the interest of justice and in order to
obtain
speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these
rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission."
(Emphasis
supplied.)
Certainly, such rule of
suspension is in accordance with the spirit of Section 6, Article IX-A
of the Constitution which bestows upon the COMELEC the power to
"promulgate
its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any
of its offices" to attain justice and the noble purpose of determining
the true will of the electorate.[31]
It is significant to
note that petitioner does not assail the factual findings of the
COMELEC
that "there was indeed manifest error in the copying of the figures
from
the election returns to the Statement of Votes by Precinct. The 41
votes
garnered by petitioner in Precinct No. 29-A-1, as canvassed by the MBC
of Castillejos, was reduced to four (4) in the Statement of Votes by
Precinct."[32]
Clearly, the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC ordering the necessary
correction of the Statement of Votes of Castillejos, Zambales, to
reflect
the true will of the people of that municipality, is in order.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2]
Annex "A", Petition, Rollo at 26–36.
[3]
Annex "B", id. at 37–43.
[4]
Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning
Candidates
for Provincial Offices, Rollo at 52–53.
[5]
Statement of Votes by City/Municipality, Rollo at 62.
[6]
Annex "C", Petition, Rollo at 44–49.
[7]
Rollo at 58.
[8]
Annex "D", id. at 64–68.
[9]
Annex "E", id. at 69–72.
[10]
Annex "F", id. at 73–74.
[11]
See Annex "G" (Order dated July 16, 2001), id. at 75–76.
[12]
See Annex "B" (Resolution dated September 5, 2001 of the COMELEC-First
Division), id., Rollo at 41.
[13]
Annex "G", Petition, Rollo at 76.
[14]
Id. at 37–43.
[15]
Annex "J", id. at 93–116.
[16]
Annex "L", id. at 119.
[17]
Annex "A", id. at 26–36.
[18]
Petition, Rollo at 4.
[19]
Rollo at 221–236.
[20]
See Article IX (C), Section 2.
[21]
See Article IX (C), Section 3.
[22]
Enojas vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129938, December 12, 1997, 283 SCRA 229.
[23]
G.R. No. 134657, December 15, 1999, 320 SCRA 836, citing Mentang vs.
COMELEC,
G.R. No. 110347, February 4, 1994, 229 SCRA 666.
[24]
Trinidad vs. COMELEC, supra, citing 55 CJS at 662; Saura Import &
Export
Co., Inc. vs. David, 52 OG 3145, 3151.
[25]
Regalado, Florenz D., Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I (6th ed.) at
140-141.
[26]
Annex "D", Rollo at 64-68.
[27]
Pangarungan vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 107435-36, December 11, 1992, 216
SCRA
522; Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA
29;
Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 106161,
February
1, 1995, 241 SCRA 36.
[28]
G.R. Nos. 86362-63, October 27, 1989, 178 SCRA 746, citing Juliano vs.
Court of Appeals and Sinsuat, 20 SCRA 808, 818–819 (1967).
[29]
G.R. No. 86645, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 849.
[30]
242 SCRA 273 (1995).
[31]
Trinidad vs. Commission on Election, supra.
[32]
Rollo at 34.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |