GR 155560; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155560-62, November 11, 2003
ALEEM AMERODDIN SARANGANI, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MAMINTAL ADIONG, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Aleem Ameroddin Sarangani, Saidamen B. Pangarungan, and private respondent Mamintal M. Adiong were candidates for governor of Lanao del Sur in the May 2001 elections. During the canvass, the original Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) issued resolutions on July 2, 2001, excluding the Certificates of Canvass (COCs) from the municipalities of Wao and Bubong due to alleged irregularities. Adiong refused to acknowledge receipt of these rulings and filed a motion with the COMELEC to change the PBC’s composition.
The COMELEC granted Adiong’s motion on the same day, July 2, 2001, directing a newly constituted PBC to complete the canvass. Unaware that the original PBC had already submitted its exclusion rulings to the COMELEC Secretary’s office, the new PBC, on July 9, 2001, overturned the old board’s decisions, included the contested COCs, and proclaimed Adiong as the winning governor. Sarangani and Pangarungan appealed to the COMELEC.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling its Second Division’s resolution and reinstating the new PBC’s ruling to include the COCs from Wao and Bubong in the canvass.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC en banc. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s factual determination that the original PBC failed to follow the proper procedure for promulgating its rulings. Under Section 20 of Republic Act 7166 and related COMELEC rules, the board must convene, rule on objections summarily, enter its ruling on a prescribed form, and authenticate it with the signatures of its members. The original PBC did not convene for a scheduled hearing on June 30, 2001, to promulgate its decision. Instead, it merely submitted its unsigned and undated rulings to the COMELEC Secretary’s office on July 2, 2001. This procedural flaw occurred simultaneously with the COMELEC’s order to reconstitute the board.
Consequently, the new PBC was legally constituted and within its authority to re-evaluate the contested COCs. The COMELEC en banc carefully examined the original COCs and found them to be authentic, leading to its decision to include them. The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that it will not interfere with COMELEC’s factual findings and conclusions absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case. The challenged resolution was therefore affirmed.