G.R. No. 106164 August 17, 1993
EDWIN V. SARDEA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, bona fide residents and voters of Mauban, Quezon, assail the COMELEC Resolution dated June 19, 1992, which denied their petition to declare a failure of election in Mauban, Quezon. On May 12, 1992, the Municipal Board of Canvassers convened to canvass election returns. On May 13, 1992, sympathizers of petitioner Edwin Sardea (a defeated mayoralty candidate) stormed the municipal building and destroyed election materials, including copies of election returns furnished to the Board. On May 14, 1992, the Board discovered that the election returns in the possession of the MTC Judge of Mauban were intact and ordered their retrieval for use in the canvass. The canvassing was suspended and moved to May 17, 1992, and later to May 18, 1992. On May 18, 1992, the Board decided to continue the canvass using the MTC copies. Atty. Romeo Devera, counsel for Sardea, objected and filed a petition to stop the proceedings, arguing the Board lacked COMELEC authority to use the MTC copies. The Board overruled the objection, citing a directive from the Provincial Election Supervisor based on authority from the COMELEC Acting Executive Director. Sardea manifested his intent to appeal, and the Board suspended proceedings. On May 19, 1992, he filed a notice of appeal. On May 22, 1992, the COMELEC held a special meeting and resolved to authorize the Board to use the MTC copies. On May 24, 1992, the Board reconvened, dismissed Sardea’s appeal, and continued the canvass. On May 26, 1992, Sardea filed a petition assailing the composition and proceedings of the Board and an Amended Notice of Appeal. On May 27, 1992, the Board proclaimed the private respondents as the duly elected officials. On June 10, 1992, petitioners filed a special action case (SPA 92-331) with the COMELEC seeking to declare a failure of election. The COMELEC denied the petition on June 19, 1992.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution denying the petition to declare a failure of election and in upholding the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for certiorari. The Court held that:
1. The petition for certiorari was seasonably filed within thirty (30) days from receipt of the COMELEC resolution, pursuant to Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution and Section 257 of the Omnibus Election Code, not the five-day period under COMELEC rules for special action cases.
2. The grounds raised by petitioners constituted pre-proclamation controversies (questioning the use of MTC copies of election returns and the composition/proceedings of the Board). Under prevailing jurisprudence, pre-proclamation controversies may no longer be entertained by the COMELEC after the winning candidates have been proclaimed and have assumed office.
3. The use of the MTC Judge’s copies of the election returns was lawful and proper under the circumstances. Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881) authorizes the use of other authentic copies of returns when those submitted to the Board are lost or destroyed. This provision is not repealed by Section 27(b)(5) of R.A. 7166 (Synchronized Election Law of 1991), which allows MTC copies to be opened for comparison when authenticity is questioned. The statutes are in pari materia and should be harmonized; R.A. 7166 does not preclude the use of authentic MTC copies when other copies are lost. The directive from the Provincial Election Supervisor and the COMELEC’s special meeting resolution provided sufficient authority for the Board to use the MTC copies.
4. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the petition to declare a failure of election. Irregularities such as fraud, vote-buying, and terrorism are proper grounds for an election contest but not generally for declaring a failure of election, which would disenfranchise the electorate.