G.R. No. 155717; October 23, 2003
ALBERTO JARAMILLA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO SUYAT, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF STA. CRUZ, ILOCOS SUR, THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS (COMELEC), AND IRENEO CORTEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto Jaramilla and respondent Antonio Suyat were candidates for Sangguniang Bayan member of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed the winning candidates on May 16, 2001, with Jaramilla ranking 7th with 4,815 votes and Suyat ranking 9th with 4,779 votes. Suyat later discovered a manifest error in the tabulation: the Statement of Votes credited Jaramilla with 73 votes from Precinct 34A1, but the corresponding Election Return showed he only received 23 votes. A correction would reduce Jaramilla’s total to 4,765 votes, thereby making Suyat the 8th winning candidate.
On June 13, 2001, Suyat filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene, which the COMELEC treated as a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. Jaramilla opposed, arguing the petition was filed beyond the 5-day reglementary period, lacked a certification against forum-shopping, and had a delayed payment of filing fees. The COMELEC en banc granted Suyat’s petition on October 24, 2002, annulled Jaramilla’s proclamation, and ordered a new board to correct the entry and proclaim Suyat.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over and granting the petition for correction despite alleged procedural defects.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On jurisdiction, the Court clarified that the constitutional requirement for cases to be first heard by a division applies only when the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. A petition for correction of a manifest clerical error in the tabulation of votes, which does not require opening ballot boxes or examining ballots, involves a purely administrative function. Thus, the COMELEC en banc could properly assume original jurisdiction over the petition.
On the procedural defects, the Court held that the COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice. The 5-day period for filing is directory, not mandatory. The absence of a certification against forum-shopping and the delayed payment of filing fees are not fatal defects, as the COMELEC has the power to relax procedural rules to address substantive issues affecting the will of the electorate. Notably, Jaramilla never substantively contested the existence of the tabulation error, which was clearly established by the election documents. The COMELEC’s factual findings, being supported by evidence, are conclusive. The Court emphasized that election laws must be liberally construed to give effect to the people’s will, not defeated by mere technicalities. The petition was dismissed.