G.R. No. 106291 February 9, 1993.
ALFONSO C. BINCE, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PANGASINAN and EMILIANO MICU, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfonso C. Bince, Jr. and private respondent Emiliano Micu were candidates for the two seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan’s Sixth Legislative District in the May 11, 1992 elections. During the canvass on May 21, 1992, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) overruled Micu’s objection to the inclusion of San Quintin’s Certificate of Canvass (COC). The COMELEC, in SPC No. 92-208, directed the PBC on June 6, 1992, to credit Bince with 1,055 votes and Micu with 1,535 votes for San Quintin. On June 11, 1992, Micu and the Municipal Boards of Canvassers (MBCs) of Tayug and San Manuel filed petitions with the PBC for correction of manifest errors in the addition in the Statements of Votes (SOVs). On June 18, 1992, after implementing the June 6 COMELEC resolution, Bince led by one vote (27,370 to 27,369) but was not proclaimed. On June 24, 1992, the PBC, over Bince’s objections, heard testimonies from election officials and ruled to allow the MBCs of Tayug and San Manuel to correct their SOVs and COCs. Bince appealed this to the COMELEC (SPC No. 92-384). The corrections, made on separate sheets of paper and signed only by the MBC chairmen, would result in Micu winning by 72 votes. On July 9, 1992, the COMELEC en banc directed the PBC to reconvene, complete the canvass using the corrected COCs, and proclaim the winner. On July 21, 1992, the PBC (with one dissenting member) proclaimed Bince as the winner, interpreting the “corrected” COCs to refer only to the corrected San Quintin COC. On July 29, 1992, the COMELEC en banc, without prior notice or hearing, annulled Bince’s proclamation and directed the PBC to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidate based on the corrected COCs of Tayug and San Manuel. Bince filed this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating its July 29, 1992 Resolution annulling Bince’s proclamation without prior notice and hearing, and in ordering the correction of the COCs/SOVs of Tayug and San Manuel.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the COMELEC’s July 29, 1992 Resolution. The Court held that the COMELEC’s annulment of a proclamation without prior notice and hearing violates due process. A proclamation, once made, is a legal act that cannot be annulled without affording the proclaimed candidate an opportunity to be heard. The COMELEC’s own Rules of Procedure require notice and hearing for the annulment of a proclamation. Furthermore, the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the correction of the COCs and SOVs of Tayug and San Manuel. The petitions for correction were filed 21 days after the canvass for those municipalities was completed, and the alleged errors were not “manifest errors in the addition” but required the examination of election returns, which is beyond the PBC’s authority during canvassing. The corrections were made on separate sheets of paper and not on the COCs and SOVs themselves, rendering them ineffective. The proper remedy for Micu was a regular election protest. The COMELEC was directed to resolve the pending incidents in SPC Nos. 92-208 and 92-384 in accordance with this ruling.