GR 151216; (July, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151216 ; July 18, 2003
MANUEL MILLA, petitioner, vs. REGINA BALMORES-LAXA, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Milla and respondent Regina Balmores-Laxa were candidates for municipal councilor of Gerona, Tarlac in the May 14, 2001 elections. On May 18, 2001, Milla was proclaimed the eighth winning candidate by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (BOC), leading Balmores-Laxa by 46 votes based on the Statement of Votes (SOV) and Certificate of Canvass. On June 18, 2001, one month after the proclamation, Balmores-Laxa filed a petition with the COMELEC to correct manifest errors in the SOV, alleging that Milla’s votes were padded by 350 votes across four precincts due to fraudulent entries that did not match the election returns. She prayed for the nullification of Milla’s proclamation and her own proclamation as winner.
Milla, who had already taken his oath and assumed office on June 29, 2001, moved for the dismissal of the petition. He argued it was filed beyond the five-day reglementary period for pre-proclamation controversies and that the COMELEC lost jurisdiction upon his assumption of office. The COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated December 18, 2001, granted Balmores-Laxa’s petition, annulled Milla’s proclamation, and proclaimed her as the eighth winning councilor. Milla filed the present petition challenging the COMELEC’s jurisdiction and the factual basis of its ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in annulling Milla’s proclamation and proclaiming Balmores-Laxa in its Resolution of December 18, 2001.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted Milla’s petition and set aside the COMELEC En Banc Resolution. The Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction because it violated its own internal procedure mandated by the Constitution and its rules. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution and Section 5, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Commission must hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, first at the division level. A motion for reconsideration of a division decision is then decided by the Commission En Banc.
In this case, respondent Balmores-Laxa’s petition (SPC No. 01-311) was a pre-proclamation controversy involving the correction of manifest errors in the SOV. It was filed directly with the COMELEC and was decided by the COMELEC En Banc without first being heard and decided by a division. This procedural shortcut was a fatal jurisdictional flaw. The En Banc’s direct assumption of the case, bypassing the division, constituted grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, its Resolution was null and void. The Court remanded the case to a COMELEC division for proper resolution. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the other substantive grounds raised by Milla.