G.R. No. 120318 December 5, 1997
RICARDO “BOY” CANICOSA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CALAMBA, LAGUNA and SEVERINO LAJARA, respondents.

FACTS

Ricardo “Boy” Canicosa and Severino Lajara were candidates for mayor in Calamba, Laguna, during the 8 May 1995 elections. After obtaining a majority of some 24,000 votes, Lajara was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May 1995, Canicosa filed a Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation with the COMELEC. He alleged widespread frauds and anomalies, including: (a) names of registered voters not appearing in the precinct lists; (b) more than one-half of legitimate voters being unable to vote, with strangers voting in their stead; (c) Canicosa being credited with fewer votes than he actually received; (d) control data of election returns not filled up in some precincts; (e) ballot boxes delivered to the Municipal Treasurer’s Office being unsecured (without padlocks or self-locking metal seals); and (f) delay in the delivery of election returns. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition, ruling that the allegations did not justify a declaration of failure of election.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for declaration of failure of election.

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition is dismissed and the COMELEC Resolution is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the grounds cited by Canicosa do not warrant a declaration of failure of election under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881). The law provides only three instances for such a declaration: (1) the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed due to force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; (2) the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour fixed for closing of voting due to those causes; or (3) after voting and during preparation/transmission of returns or custody/canvass thereof, the election results in a failure to elect due to those causes. None of Canicosa’s grounds fall under these instances.
The Court elaborated on the proper remedies for each allegation: (a) For voters’ names not appearing in the list, the proper recourse was a petition for inclusion with the regular courts (Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts under Sec. 138 of the Omnibus Election Code) or a verified complaint for annulment of the book of voters with the COMELEC under Sec. 10 of R.A. No. 7166 . (b) For strangers voting, watchers were empowered to challenge illegal voters under Secs. 199 and 202 of the Omnibus Election Code. (c) For being credited with less votes and unfilled control data, the issues should have been raised before the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers, and a petition for correction of election returns could be filed with the COMELEC if supported by a majority of the board. (d) For late delivery and unsecured ballot boxes, these bare allegations alone do not justify a failure of election. The Court also noted that the petition was filed directly with the COMELEC en banc, which was procedurally incorrect as such petitions should be filed with a division first, with motions for reconsideration going to the en banc. The allegations pertained to pre-proclamation controversies, which are administrative in nature and should be heard by a division. Finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC, the petition was dismissed.