G.R. No. 122391 August 7, 1997
FELIPE L. LAODENIO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MAPANAS, NORTHERN SAMAR and ROGELIO LONGCOP, respondents.

FACTS

Felipe L. Laodenio and Rogelio Longcop were candidates for Mayor of Mapanas, Northern Samar, in the May 1995 elections. Longcop was proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on May 15, 1995. On May 20, 1995, Laodenio filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation, alleging the Board was illegally constituted and its proceedings were void. He claimed the Board repeatedly adjourned after being informed by poll officials that election returns from Precincts 5-A and 7-A were tampered with to increase Longcop’s votes. Despite his oral and written objections, the Board, now with a new chairman allegedly appointed only by the Provincial Election Supervisor, proceeded to canvass the contested returns.
Laodenio also filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court on May 25, 1995. The COMELEC dismissed his pre-proclamation petition on August 28, 1995, finding the adjournments justified and that Laodenio had acquiesced to the new Board composition by active participation. It also ruled the controversy was moot as Longcop had been proclaimed and assumed office, citing Padilla v. COMELEC. Laodenio’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the COMELEC correctly dismissed the pre-proclamation controversy, specifically on grounds of mootness due to the proclamation and assumption of office by the winning candidate, and the petitioner’s failure to properly appeal the Board’s rulings.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s dismissal. The legal logic centers on the application of Section 17 of R.A. 7166, which governs pre-proclamation controversies. While questions affecting the composition or proceedings of a board of canvassers may be initiated directly with the COMELEC, matters concerning the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns—such as allegations of tampering under Sections 233, 234, 235, and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code—must be raised first before the board of canvassers. Any adverse ruling must then be appealed to the COMELEC within three days per Section 19 of R.A. 7166.
The Court found that Laodenio did raise the issue of the Board’s composition before it but, after seeing the Provincial Election Supervisor’s notice, his counsel agreed to proceed. His subsequent active participation was justifiably construed by the COMELEC as acquiescence. More critically, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s application of the Padilla doctrine. Once a candidate is proclaimed and assumes office, a pre-proclamation controversy is generally no longer viable, as the summary nature of such proceedings is ill-suited for adjudicating serious charges of irregularities that require a full-dress hearing. An election protest is the more appropriate remedy to conclusively settle the matter. The Court found no reason to apply the exception in Agbayani v. COMELEC, as Laodenio merely filed his protest as a precaution without sufficient elaboration. The COMELEC’s decision, being within its competence and absent any jurisdictional error, was entitled to respect.