G.R. No. 125798 June 19, 1997
Hadji Hamid Lumna Patoray, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Topaan D. Disomimba, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 8, 1995 elections for mayor of Tamparan, Lanao del Sur, petitioner Hadji Hamid Lumna Patoray and private respondent Topaan D. Disomimba were rivals. The initial count showed Patoray winning by 25 votes (3,778 to 3,573). During canvass, Disomimba objected to the inclusion of returns from precincts 16, 17, 19, and 20-A. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) overruled the objections. On appeal, the COMELEC, in a July 12, 1995 Resolution, excluded the returns from precincts 16 and 20-A, which reversed the result in favor of Disomimba. Patoray challenged this before the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 120823 ).
In an October 24, 1995 Decision, the Supreme Court directed the COMELEC to order a recount of ballots in precincts 16 and 20-A, but only after first determining the integrity of the ballot boxes and ballots pursuant to Sections 234 and 236 of the Omnibus Election Code. Instead, the COMELEC, in a January 18, 1996 Order, immediately directed the MBC to reconvene and recount the ballots. Disomimba filed a motion to hold the recount in abeyance until integrity was determined, but the COMELEC denied it on January 25, 1996, stating no preliminary determination was needed as the recount was upon Supreme Court orders. Disomimba participated in the recount.
During the recanvass on January 25, 1996, Disomimba objected to the inclusion of the ballots from precincts 16 and 20-A on grounds they were “manufactured, fabricated or not authentic” and included “spurious, marked and invalid ballots.” The MBC rejected these objections as improper in a pre-proclamation case. The recount showed Patoray winning, and he was proclaimed mayor on January 26, 1996. Disomimba moved to declare the recount null and void, which the COMELEC en banc merely noted. Patoray took his oath on January 30, 1996.
On February 5, 1996, Disomimba filed an election protest with the RTC of Marawi City and a petition with the COMELEC to annul Patoray’s proclamation, arguing the MBC failed to rule on his objections as required by Section 20 of R.A. 7166. On June 28, 1996, the COMELEC (Second Division) granted the petition, annulled Patoray’s proclamation, and directed the MBC to reconvene and recanvass, strictly observing Section 20 of R.A. 7166. Patoray filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc.
On August 1, 1996, the COMELEC en banc issued an Order directing the parties to maintain the status quo, but also ordering the MBC to reconvene and recanvass. On August 13, 1996, Disomimba filed a Motion for Clarification. On August 16, 1996, the COMELEC en banc issued an Order reversing its August 1 Order and holding the recanvass in abeyance pending resolution of Patoray’s motion for reconsideration. This August 16 Order was issued without giving Patoray a chance to file an opposition. Commissioner Maambong later dissented, stating he was not consulted. Patoray filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling petitioner Patoray’s proclamation based on the ground that the Municipal Board of Canvassers failed to follow the procedure in Section 20 of R.A. 7166 when it overruled private respondent Disomimba’s objections to the ballots during the recanvass.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the June 28, 1996 COMELEC Resolution annulling Patoray’s proclamation, and made the temporary restraining order permanent.
The objections raised by private respondent Disomimba during the recanvass—that the ballots were “manufactured, fabricated or not authentic” and included “spurious, marked and invalid ballots”—pertain to the appreciation of ballots and their validity. These are matters concerning the correctness of the votes cast and are not proper grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy. They are beyond the competence of the board of canvassers to adjudicate. The proper remedy for such allegations is an election protest, not a pre-proclamation case. Since the objections were not valid grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy, the procedure outlined in Section 20 of R.A. 7166, which requires the board of canvassers to rule on objections and allow evidence, does not apply. The Municipal Board of Canvassers correctly overruled the objections. Therefore, the COMELEC’s annulment of the proclamation based on a violation of Section 20 was erroneous. Private respondent’s recourse is to proceed with the election protest pending before the RTC of Marawi City.