G.R. No. 107509 -11 February 28, 1994
YUSOPH PAPANDAYAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BUADIPUSO BUNTONG, LANAO DEL SUR AND ABDUL GANI ACOON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Yusoph Panday was a candidate for mayor of Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1992 elections. He filed with the COMELEC an Urgent Omnibus Motion (SPC No. 92-182) praying, among other things, that the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct No. 40-A-1 be directed to complete its election return by including seven unsigned ballots. The COMELEC en banc granted his prayer in Minute Resolution No. 92-1621. The Board of Election Inspectors completed Election Return No. 660241 for Precinct No. 40-A-1, showing petitioner received 45 votes and private respondent Abdul Gani Acoon received 19 votes. However, when this return was submitted to the Municipal Board of Canvassers, private respondent verbally moved for its exclusion, claiming it was not submitted by the assigned poll clerk. The Board of Canvassers ruled it could not open the envelope containing the return, citing non-compliance with the COMELEC’s order. Petitioner appealed this ruling to the COMELEC (SPC No. 92-341). The COMELEC en banc, in Resolution No. 92-1805, directed the Board of Canvassers to determine if the seven questioned ballots would materially affect the election results. The Board of Canvassers reported the ballots would not affect the result. Petitioner also filed a petition (SPC No. 92-358) seeking to nullify private respondent’s proclamation. The COMELEC First Division dismissed all three cases, and the COMELEC en banc affirmed the dismissal. Petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s special cases (SPC Nos. 92-182, 92-341, and 92-358).

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court held: (1) SPC No. 92-182 was considered terminated when the COMELEC granted petitioner’s prayer in Resolution No. 92-1621; (2) SPC No. 92-341 was deemed terminated when the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 92-1805, which directed the Board of Canvassers to determine the materiality of the seven ballots, and the Board reported they would not affect the result; (3) SPC No. 92-358 was an election contest, jurisdiction over which is vested in regular courts, not the COMELEC; (4) SPC Nos. 92-341 and 92-358 were in effect motions for reconsideration of COMELEC Resolution No. 92-1805, a prohibited pleading under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure; (5) the election return for Precinct No. 40-A-1 was dubious as it was submitted by a person other than the assigned poll clerk; (6) there was no disenfranchisement as votes in Precinct No. 40-A-1 were properly appreciated, excluding the seven ballots, with petitioner already credited 23 votes against private respondent’s 19 votes; and (7) the issues raised were factual, and petitioner failed to raise substantial issues meriting reversal.