G.R. No. L-17912; May 31, 1963
MELANIO OLANO, petitioner, vs. DOMINADOR RONQUILLO, FERMIN PORTILES, and the HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The municipality of San Isidro, Samar, was reclassified as a 7th class municipality effective July 1, 1958, entitling it to elect six municipal councilors under Republic Act No. 2368. In the November 10, 1959 elections, however, the Municipal Board of Canvassers, operating under the mistaken belief that the municipality was only entitled to four councilors, proclaimed only the top four vote-getters. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), upon investigation, found that official notices, including the ballot itself which had six spaces for councilors, had informed the electorate of the correct number. It thus ordered the Board to reconvene and proclaim the candidates who placed fifth and sixth.
Petitioner Melania Olano, as president of the party that would lose its council majority if the order were implemented, sought reconsideration, arguing the electorate was misled. The COMELEC denied this, finding no evidence of such confusion and noting both major political parties had fielded full slates of six candidates. Olano then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising purely legal questions regarding COMELEC’s jurisdiction and the Board’s status.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the Municipal Board of Canvassers, which had already proclaimed four winners, to reconvene and proclaim additional councilors.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s resolution. The Court clarified that while the COMELEC is an administrative body, it possesses the authority to ensure that election officers perform their ministerial duties. The petitioner’s argument that the Board had become functus officio after its initial proclamation was rejected. The Court cited precedents establishing that a board of canvassers may be compelled to reconvene and correct its proclamation if it failed to perform a mandatory duty, such as proclaiming the correct number of winners based on all valid votes.
In this case, the Board’s ministerial duty was to proclaim the six candidates with the highest votes for councilor. By proclaiming only four, it failed to fully execute this duty. The COMELEC, in exercising its supervisory power to enforce compliance with election laws, acted within its jurisdiction in ordering the Board to complete its task. The Court found no merit in the claim of voter confusion, as the official ballot provided six spaces, and the legal reclassification was communicated through proper channels prior to the election.