GR 149147; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149147; June 18, 2003
FELIX BAROT, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TANJAY CITY and ROLANDO TABALOC, Respondents.
FACTS
Felix Barot and Rolando Tabaloc were candidates for city councilor of Tanjay City in the May 14, 2001 elections. On May 17, 2001, the City Board of Canvassers (BOC) proclaimed Barot as the 10th winning councilor. Subsequently, on May 29, 2001, the BOC Chairperson filed a Memorandum with the COMELEC En Banc, requesting authority to correct manifest errors in the Certificate of Canvass due to an oversight in tabulation. The error allegedly resulted from copying grand totals instead of subtotals, which overstated votes for certain candidates, including Barot, and consequently led to his erroneous proclamation over Tabaloc, who purportedly received more votes.
Barot filed an opposition, arguing that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction as the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period, that the BOC was not a proper party, and that correction of manifest errors is only permissible before proclamation; thereafter, the proper remedy is an election protest. The COMELEC En Banc granted the BOC’s petition in its August 3, 2001 Resolution, suspending or annulling Barot’s proclamation and directing the BOC to reconvene, correct the entries, and proclaim the winning candidates based on the corrected tally.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition to correct manifest errors in the Certificate of Canvass and annulling Barot’s proclamation.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s Resolution. The Court clarified that the COMELEC possesses broad discretion to suspend its procedural rules, including reglementary periods, in the interest of justice and to ensure the speedy disposition of election cases. Although the BOC’s petition was filed 12 days after proclamation, beyond the period suggested in Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 3848 for correcting manifest errors before proclamation, the COMELEC validly exercised its authority under Section 4, Rule 1 of its Rules of Procedure to suspend the rules. This power is essential to achieving a fair and accurate reflection of the electorate’s will.
Regarding the propriety of the BOC as a petitioner, the Court ruled that the BOC is a proper party. Under Section 34 of Resolution No. 3848, the BOC may motu proprio correct errors after due notice and hearing. Therefore, it is logically empowered to initiate the petition before the COMELEC to rectify its own mistakes. The Court also found no merit in Barot’s claim of denial of due process, as he was given the opportunity to be heard through required comments and hearings. The COMELEC’s actions were within its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, ensuring the correctness of the canvass and proclamation. The Temporary Restraining Order was lifted, and the COMELEC was directed to implement its assailed Resolution.