G.R. No. 86645 ; July 31, 1991
HIPOLITO O. TATLONG-HARI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CESAR C. CASTILLO, REYNALDO B. GILERA, MILQUIADES BAUTISTA, JR., and ADELAIDA M. ALDOVINO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hipolito Tatlonghari and private respondent Cesar Castillo were candidates for municipal councilor of Mabini, Batangas in the January 18, 1988 elections. Castillo was proclaimed elected on January 19, 1988. On April 26, 1988, Tatlonghari filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul this proclamation. He alleged that the Municipal Board of Canvassers committed a manifest error in the “Statement of Votes by Precinct” for Precincts 1 to 15, where 910 votes intended for candidate Nilo Camongol were erroneously added to Castillo’s total. This error inflated Castillo’s votes from 3,681 to 4,591, causing his proclamation over Tatlonghari, who actually received 3,732 votes. The Board of Canvassers admitted the error in its answer.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition in a minute resolution dated September 22, 1988, ruling it was filed more than three months after the election. It advised Tatlonghari to file a regular election protest. Tatlonghari’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc on January 19, 1989, for being filed late, as the Division’s resolution had become final under the Omnibus Election Code.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition to annul proclamation based on a manifest mistake in the canvass, on grounds of prescription and tardiness of the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the COMELEC resolutions, and ordered Tatlonghari’s proclamation. The Court held that the COMELEC has the constitutional duty to enforce election laws, which includes the power to correct manifest errors in the canvass even after a proclamation. A proclamation based on an erroneous canvass is void ab initio. The remedy of an election protest presupposes a valid proclamation; it is not the exclusive remedy when the proclamation itself is null due to a patently erroneous canvass. The three-month period cited by COMELEC applies to election protests, not to petitions questioning the validity of a proclamation.
The Court emphasized that election cases involve public interest, and technicalities should not defeat the will of the electorate. The admitted error by the Board of Canvassers clearly showed Tatlonghari obtained more votes. Therefore, he was the candidate duly elected. The delay in filing the motion for reconsideration could not extinguish his right to the office, as the core issue was the correction of a mathematical error that subverted the popular will. The Board of Canvassers was ordered to reconvene and proclaim Tatlonghari as the duly elected councilor.