GR 135613; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135613; March 9, 2000
ARTHUR V. VELAYO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ERNESTO NATIVIDAD, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arthur V. Velayo and private respondent Ernesto Natividad were candidates for mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija in the May 11, 1998 elections. During the canvass by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC), Natividad objected to certain election returns. The MBOC denied his objections. Natividad subsequently filed several petitions with the COMELEC (SPC Nos. 98-002, 98-050, and 98-073) challenging the MBOC’s composition, proceedings, and rulings on the contested returns. Crucially, these petitions did not name the MBOC or Velayo as respondents, nor were they furnished copies. On May 17, 1998, the MBOC proclaimed Velayo the winner. On June 9, 1998, the COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed Natividad’s petitions as moot and academic due to the proclamation.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion in annulling Velayo’s proclamation based on petitions where he was not named as a respondent and was not afforded due process.
RULING
Yes, the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC Resolution dated October 6, 1998, and reinstated Velayo’s proclamation. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirement of due process. A pre-proclamation controversy is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC rules mandate that any candidate who would be adversely affected by the proceedings must be impleaded as a respondent and notified. This ensures the right to be heard. In this case, Velayo, the proclaimed winning candidate, was the real party-in-interest who stood to be adversely affected by Natividad’s petitions seeking to annul the canvass and the proclamation. The failure to implead Velayo and to furnish him copies of the petitions and subsequent motions deprived him of his right to participate and defend his interest. Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc acquired no jurisdiction over his person. Any decision rendered without jurisdiction over an indispensable party is void. The COMELEC’s act of annulling his proclamation based on these void proceedings constituted a denial of due process and was therefore tainted with grave abuse of discretion.