GR 107435; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107435 December 11, 1992
Saidamen B. Pagarungan, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Mahid Mutilan, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Saidamen B. Pagarungan and private respondent Mahid Mutilan were candidates for Provincial Governor of Lanao del Sur in the May 1992 elections. During the provincial canvass, Mutilan objected to the inclusion of the Certificate of Canvass (COC) from Madamba municipality, alleging it was spurious. The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC), relying on an investigation report, excluded the contested COC. Pagarungan appealed this ruling to the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 92-387.
The COMELEC en banc initially took cognizance of the case but later raffled it to its First Division following a Supreme Court directive. The First Division, in a Resolution dated September 18, 1992, denied Pagarungan’s appeal. It found the PBC’s exclusion of the Madamba COC proper, noting discrepancies between the COC and the supporting Statement of Votes and the PBC’s reasonable reliance on the investigation report. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this resolution on October 23, 1992.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the PBC’s exclusion of the Certificate of Canvass from Madamba.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The legal logic rests on the nature of the PBC’s and COMELEC’s authority and the standard of review. A canvassing board possesses the inherent authority to determine the authenticity and genuineness of certificates of canvass presented to it. The PBC’s unanimous decision to exclude the Madamba COC was based on substantial evidence, primarily an official investigation report which found the document to be a substitute and spurious. The COMELEC, in its appellate review, found this conclusion supported by the records, including discrepancies that cast doubt on the COC’s integrity.
The Court emphasized that certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The COMELEC’s resolutions were based on its evaluation of the evidence and its factual findings. Absent any clear showing of arbitrariness or a denial of due process, which the petitioner failed to establish, the Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the COMELEC on matters within its expertise and jurisdiction. The petition merely reiterated arguments already passed upon and failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error.