G.R. No. 199084 ; September 11, 2012
ANTONIA P. CERON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, GRACE P. VALDEZ, EVA T. PAUIG and ARJOLYN T. ANTONIO, in their capacity as MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION TELLERS OF CLUSTERED PRECINCTS 0844A and 0844B of BARANGAY 201, PASAY CITY and ROMEO ARCILLA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonia P. Ceron and private respondent Romeo O. Arcilla were candidates for Barangay Kagawad of Barangay 201, Pasay City in the October 2010 elections. After canvassing, Ceron was proclaimed the sixth winning candidate with 921 votes, while Arcilla ranked eighth with 919 votes. Arcilla filed an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), alleging a discrepancy in the Election Return for Clustered Precincts 844A and 844B. He claimed the total number of taras (vote marks) for Ceron was 50, but the written words and figures recorded 56 votes, creating a six-vote error. The MeTC dismissed the protest for failure to comply with a procedural requirement, specifically the failure to state the total number of precincts in the barangay. Arcilla did not appeal this dismissal.
Subsequently, the Board of Election Tellers (BET) members themselves filed a petition with the COMELEC, seeking to correct the same alleged error in the Election Return. They claimed an honest mistake occurred due to noise during the tally. The COMELEC First Division granted the petition, ordering the correction of the returns and the nullification of Ceron’s proclamation. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this decision. Ceron then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for correction of the Election Return and annulling Ceron’s proclamation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the COMELEC resolutions, and reinstated Ceron’s proclamation. The Court held that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion because it had no jurisdiction to entertain the BET’s petition. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case—the validity of Ceron’s proclamation and the correction of election returns—was already vested in the regular courts by the filing of Arcilla’s election protest. The dismissal of that protest by the MeTC, even if on procedural grounds, constituted a final adjudication on the merits for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. Once an election protest is filed, the COMELEC is divested of its jurisdiction to entertain any subsequent action involving the same issue, as jurisdiction is exclusively lodged with the court where the protest is pending.
The legal logic is grounded in the doctrine of hierarchy of courts and the statutory jurisdiction conferred by law. Under Section 19 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9164 , jurisdiction over election contests involving barangay officials lies with the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court. The COMELEC’s jurisdiction under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code is not concurrent but limited to specific instances not present here. The BET’s petition, which essentially sought to achieve what Arcilla’s failed protest intended, was an improper collateral attack on a final proclamation. The proper remedy for Arcilla was to appeal the MeTC’s dismissal order, which he did not pursue. Therefore, the COMELEC’s assumption of jurisdiction and subsequent orders constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power amounting to grave abuse of discretion.