G.R. No. 164225 . April 19, 2006.
JUHARY A. GALO, Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LUMBA-BAYABAO, LANAO DEL SUR, and MINDA DAGALANGIT, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juhary A. Galo and private respondent Minda P. Dagalangit were candidates for mayor of Lumba-Bayabao, Lanao del Sur in the May 10, 2004 elections. A failure of election was declared for that date due to serious disagreements, prompting the COMELEC to hold a special election on May 12, 2004. Subsequently, Galo filed a petition with the COMELEC En Banc to declare a failure of election and annul the results from six specific precincts. He alleged massive irregularities, including the use of fake ballots and the refusal of election inspectors to record valid objections, which he claimed subverted the electorate’s will.
After filing his petition, Galo was proclaimed the winning candidate on May 20, 2004, based on the results of the failed May 10 election. He then filed an urgent motion with the COMELEC, stating his proclamation rendered his petition moot and academic and manifesting his loss of interest, praying for its withdrawal. The COMELEC En Banc, however, proceeded to resolve the case.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC En Banc commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Galo’s petition to declare a failure of election and in annulling his subsequent proclamation?

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal grounds for declaring a failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code are strictly construed. The provision requires that (a) no election was held, (b) the election was suspended, or (c) after voting, the preparation, transmission, custody, or canvass of returns resulted in a failure to elect, provided such event affects the election result. The Court, citing Tan v. COMELEC, emphasized that these conditions are conjunctive; all must concur.
Galo’s allegations pertained to fraud and irregularities during an election that was admittedly held. He failed to prove that no voting took place in the contested precincts during the May 12 special election. His petition essentially questioned the integrity of the ballots and the counting, which are matters of election protest, not grounds for a failure-of-election declaration. The COMELEC correctly found that since an election was held and the alleged anomalies did not prevent the holding thereof, his petition lacked merit.
Furthermore, the COMELEC validly annulled Galo’s May 20, 2004 proclamation. The proclamation was based on the results of the May 10 election, which was officially declared a failure. Therefore, the canvass for that date was void. His proclamation was also issued in defiance of the COMELEC’s May 21, 2004 order suspending the board’s proceedings. The COMELEC acted within its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws in nullifying this illegal proclamation.