GR L 63802; (February, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-63802-03 February 25, 1985
SINFOROSA R. JAGUROS and WILLIAM A. DIU, petitioners, vs. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, Branch 16, Regional Trial Court at Naval, Leyte, FLORENTINO QUIJANO and SUPREMO SABITSANA, respondents.
FACTS
Florentino Quijano and Supreme Sabitsana were proclaimed as the duly elected mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, of Almeria, Leyte, following the January 30, 1980 elections. The losing candidates, Sinforosa R. Jaguros and William A. Diu of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, subsequently filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance. Their protest alleged that frauds, irregularities, and misappreciation of ballots had tainted the election results. In the course of the proceedings, the protestants filed a motion seeking the opening of the ballot boxes for a recount of the ballots.
The trial court, presided over by Judge Adriano R. Villamor, denied this motion in an order dated March 10, 1983. The court based its denial on the absence of specific evidence presented by the protestants demonstrating that irregularities were actually committed. This order prompted Jaguros and Diu to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the denial constituted a grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for the opening of ballot boxes and a recount of ballots on the sole ground of absence of prior evidence of irregularities.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order. The legal logic centers on the applicable rules governing election contests. The Court noted that the trial court was furnished with COMELEC Resolution No. 1451, which contains the rules for such protests. Rule VI, Section 9 of this Resolution provides that the court shall order ballot boxes and related documents brought before it “[w]here allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the opinion of the Court the interest of justice so demands.”
The Court clarified that the requirement for prior evidence of irregularities, which might have been inferred under the old Revised Election Code of 1967, is no longer controlling. While Section 175 of the old Code allowed recounting upon petition, the 1978 Election Code (Presidential Decree No. 1296) did not explicitly reproduce it. However, the Court, citing an amicus curiae submission from the COMELEC’s law department, held that the substance of that provision is now effectively embodied in Section 9 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1451. Consequently, the established jurisprudence that a protestant need not present extrinsic evidence of irregularities to justify a ballot revision remains good law. The allegations in the protest themselves are sufficient to warrant the opening of ballot boxes in the interest of justice. Therefore, Judge Villamor’s refusal to order a recount constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court directed the immediate opening of the ballot boxes and a prompt resolution of the election protest.