GR 180711; (June, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180711 ; June 22, 2010
RUDOLFO I. BELUSO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY, Respondents.
FACTS
In the 2004 elections, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) of Capiz, where petitioner Rudolfo I. Beluso served as Vice-Chairman, erroneously entered only 43 votes for the Gabriela Women’s Party in the provincial Certificate of Canvass, instead of the correct 2,071 votes. The error was discovered during the national canvass. The PBOC Chairman admitted the mistake, and the COMELEC authorized its correction. Nevertheless, Gabriela filed an election offense complaint against the PBOC members and support personnel.
During the preliminary investigation, the respondents, including Beluso, attributed the error to the support staff tasked with transcribing figures. The tabulators admitted signing the certificate without thorough verification. The COMELEC, in a Resolution, dismissed the criminal complaint for lack of probable cause but found the PBOC members grossly negligent. It perpetually barred them from serving in any COMELEC canvassing board.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing the penalty of perpetual disqualification from serving in any canvassing board upon the petitioner.
RULING
No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. The Court clarified that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. An error of jurisdiction occurs when a tribunal acts without or in excess of its 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 legal logic is that the COMELEC, in the exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers over election administration, has the authority to discipline members of its boards of canvassers. Its finding of gross negligence and the consequent administrative penalty, based on the PBOC members’ total failure to exercise oversight and personally verify the accuracy of the certificate of canvass as required by law, was an act within its jurisdiction. The petitioner’s argument essentially questioned the wisdom or correctness of the COMELEC’s discretionary act, which is an error of judgment, not jurisdiction. Since the COMELEC acted within its legal authority, its resolution cannot be overturned via certiorari. The proper remedy for such a discretionary administrative penalty, if deemed erroneous, is an appeal, not a special civil action for certiorari.