G.R. No. 134657 December 15, 1999
WENCESLAO P. TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PASAY CITY BOARD OF ELECTION CANVASSERS and JOVITO CLAUDIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wenceslao Trinidad and private respondent Jovito Claudio were candidates for Mayor of Pasay City in the May 11, 1998 elections. The Pasay City Board of Canvassers proclaimed Claudio the winner on May 18, 1998, with a margin of 228 votes. On May 23, 1998, Trinidad filed a petition for correction of manifest errors and annulment of proclamation before the COMELEC, alleging double canvassing of five election returns and inclusion of a bogus return. He claimed correction would give him a plurality. On June 8, 1998, he filed a supplemental petition alleging a discrepancy in a Summary of Statement of Votes (SOV), where a SOV reflected 1099 votes for him but the summary only credited 1009.
The COMELEC ordered the parties to file simultaneous memoranda, after which the case would be deemed submitted. Claudio filed an answer/memorandum with a counter-petition for correction on June 15, 1998. In a Manifestation and Comments filed on July 18, 1998—34 days after the case was deemed submitted—Trinidad raised, for the first time, the issue of incomplete canvassing, alleging five precincts were never canvassed. The COMELEC En Banc, in its July 29, 1998 Resolution, dismissed Trinidad’s petitions, authorized the Board to reconvene to correct specified clerical errors and the SOV discrepancy, and affirmed Claudio’s proclamation.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the proclamation of respondent Jovito Claudio.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court held that the issue of incomplete canvassing, raised for the first time in Trinidad’s July 18, 1998 Manifestation, was filed beyond the reglementary period. A pre-proclamation controversy for correction of manifest errors must be filed within five days following proclamation, while an election protest must be filed within ten days. The Manifestation was filed 34 days after the case was deemed submitted for resolution. The Court emphasized that when a case is submitted for decision, it can only consider evidence presented prior to submission unless prior leave is obtained. The COMELEC did not rule on the five uncanvassed returns, as the issue was not timely raised before it.
Regarding the supplemental petition and Claudio’s counter-petition, the Court found the COMELEC acted within its discretion. The COMELEC treated Claudio’s pleading as a permissible counter-petition, equivalent to an answer with a counterclaim under suppletory civil procedure rules. Although Trinidad argued no rule suspension was needed, the Court noted the COMELEC suspended its rules to consider his own supplemental petition—filed 21 days after proclamation and technically a prohibited pleading—and credited him with the 90 votes claimed therein. Thus, he benefited from the same procedural leniency. The COMELEC possesses the authority to suspend its rules to prevent a miscarriage of justice and give effect to the people’s will. Absent a showing of patent and gross abuse of discretion, the Court will not interfere with COMELEC’s factual determinations and exercise of jurisdiction.