G.R. No. 120140 August 21, 1996
BENJAMIN U. BORJA, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PATEROS MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Borja, Jr. and private respondent Jose Capco, Jr. were candidates for Mayor of Pateros in the May 8, 1995 elections. Capco won by a margin of 6,330 votes, was proclaimed, and assumed office. Borja filed a petition before the COMELEC to declare a failure of election and to nullify the canvass and proclamation. He alleged fraud, violence, terrorism, disenfranchisement, flying voters, and lack of notice of the canvass. The COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition via a resolution dated May 25, 1995, ruling that the cited grounds pertained to an election contest, not to the statutory grounds for declaring a failure of election.
Borja elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari. He argued that the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion by hearing and deciding his petition at the first instance. He contended that under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, all election cases and pre-proclamation controversies must be heard and decided by a COMELEC Division, with the Commission en banc acting only on motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and dismissing Borja’s petition to declare a failure of election.

RULING

No, the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was correctly dismissed, and the COMELEC en banc properly assumed jurisdiction because a petition to declare a failure of election is neither an election case nor a pre-proclamation controversy under the Constitution and relevant laws.
The constitutional provision cited by Borja mandates that election cases and pre-proclamation controversies be heard and decided by a Division. However, a petition to declare a failure of election is a distinct proceeding governed by Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC may declare a failure of election only in three specific instances: (1) no election was held on the date fixed; (2) the election was suspended before the legal closing of voting; or (3) the election resulted in a failure to elect, meaning nobody was elected. The grounds alleged by Borja—such as fraud, terrorism, and disenfranchisement—are merely the potential causes that may lead to those three instances; they are not the grounds themselves. Since an election was held, Capco was proclaimed, and he assumed office, none of the statutory grounds for a failure of election existed.
Borja’s petition, in substance, was an election protest challenging Capco’s victory based on irregularities. For the municipal position of mayor, an election protest falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the proper Regional Trial Court under Section 251 of the Election Code, with COMELEC exercising only appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the COMELEC en banc correctly dismissed the petition for being filed with the wrong tribunal. No denial of due process occurred, as the COMELEC’s evaluation of the petition’s facial insufficiency constituted a fair hearing. The COMELEC acted within its authority and in accordance with law.