G.R. No. 169885 ; July 25, 2006
ARTEMIO PEDRAGOZA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO SUMULONG, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Artemio Pedragoza and respondent Francisco Sumulong, Jr. were candidates for Punong Barangay of De La Paz, Antipolo City in the 2002 elections. Pedragoza was proclaimed winner by 39 votes. Sumulong filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), seeking a recount of ballots from 25 precincts. Pedragoza filed a counter-protest. The MTC dismissed both protests, finding the parties’ objections to ballots insufficient to alter the results. Sumulong appealed to the COMELEC.
The COMELEC First Division reversed the MTC, annulled Pedragoza’s proclamation, and declared Sumulong the winner by 19 votes after a revision and appreciation of contested ballots. Pedragoza moved for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. In a Resolution dated September 30, 2005, the En Banc, with all five incumbent Commissioners signing, denied the motion and affirmed the First Division. Commissioners Sadain and Tuason indicated they “took no part” but did not state their reasons for inhibition.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the failure of two COMELEC Commissioners to state their reasons for inhibition annuls the En Banc Resolution for lack of a quorum; and (2) whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division’s findings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC En Banc Resolution. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the omission of the reasons for inhibition by Commissioners Sadain and Tuason did not invalidate the resolution or result in a lack of quorum. While Section 1, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandates that a member who takes no part must state the reason, the failure to comply is a procedural lapse that does not automatically void the decision. A quorum of three commissioners remained, which was sufficient to render a valid ruling. The requirement to state reasons is intended to ensure transparency and accountability, but its non-observance does not negate the existence of a quorum or the validity of the act of the majority who participated.
On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC En Banc. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The COMELEC’s factual findings on ballot appreciation, including its deductions and additions to the vote tallies based on grounds like marked ballots and ballots written by one hand, are accorded respect and finality unless shown to be devoid of rational basis. Pedragoza failed to demonstrate that the COMELEC’s appreciation of the contested ballots was arbitrary or made in disregard of evidentiary rules. Thus, the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and discretion.