G.R. No. 152163 November 18, 2002
SABDULLAH T. MACABAGO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JAMAEL M. SALACOP, respondents.

FACTS

On May 22, 2001, petitioner Sabdullah T. Macabago was proclaimed the winning candidate for Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur, with a lead of 198 votes over private respondent Jamael M. Salacop. On June 1, 2001, private respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC (docketed as SPC-01-234) to annul the elections and proclamation in the municipality. He alleged massive substitution of voters, rampant irregularities in voting procedures in Precincts Nos. 19, 20, 28 and 29, and failure of the Board of Election Inspectors to comply with election laws, rendering the election process a sham. He prayed for the election results in those precincts to be set aside and excluded, and the proclamation annulled. Petitioner, in his answer, denied the allegations and averred that the petition raised a pre-proclamation controversy, proper only for an election protest. The COMELEC En Banc took cognizance, re-docketed the petition as a Special Action, and on February 11, 2002, issued an order directing the Election Officer to produce the original Voters Registration Records (VRRs) of the questioned precincts in Manila for technical examination. The COMELEC concluded there was convincing proof of massive fraud, noting petitioner’s lead was only 124 votes vis-à-vis the 474 voters in the contested precincts. Petitioner filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of the petition and ordering the technical examination.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s recourse to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 is proper.
2. Whether the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of private respondent’s petition and issuing the assailed Order.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner’s recourse under Rule 65 is proper. The assailed COMELEC order is administrative in nature. Rule 64 governs review of final orders of the COMELEC in its quasi-judicial functions and does not apply to interlocutory or administrative orders. While an administrative order is generally not a proper subject for certiorari, when the COMELEC acts capriciously or whimsically with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the aggrieved party may seek redress via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
2. Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition before the COMELEC did not pose a pre-proclamation controversy, which is limited to challenges against the board of canvassers and proceedings before it relating to election returns, and is summary in nature, prohibiting reception of evidence aliunde. The grounds alleged by private respondent (fraud, irregularities, voter substitution) required reception of evidence beyond the face of the returns and were proper for a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy. Furthermore, the petition was not one for annulment of elections or declaration of failure of election, as the elections ensued and a winner was proclaimed; the alleged fraud did not prevent or suspend the holding of an election. The COMELEC should have dismissed the petition instead of issuing the order for technical examination. Its error is correctible by certiorari.
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed order is SET ASIDE. The petition of private respondent with the COMELEC is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest.