G.R. No. 159369 March 3, 2004
NANCY SORIANO BANDALA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NEW BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR OROQUIETA CITY and ALEJANDRO G. BERENGUEL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nancy Soriano Bandala and respondent Alejandro G. Berenguel were candidates for mayor of Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental in the May 14, 2001 elections. During the canvass, respondent objected to the inclusion of eighty election returns, primarily on the grounds that seventy-one lacked inner paper seals, seven did not indicate the party affiliation of watcher-signatories, and two had missing pages listing local candidates. The City Board of Canvassers overruled the objections and included the returns, leading to petitioner’s proclamation as mayor on June 30, 2001.
Respondent appealed to the COMELEC. Its Second Division, in a September 5, 2002 Resolution, affirmed the Board’s ruling, holding that the lack of an inner seal does not automatically render a return spurious and that a board of canvassers performs a ministerial duty based on returns regular on their face. However, the COMELEC En Banc, in an August 14, 2003 Resolution, reversed the Second Division. It ordered the exclusion of 101 returns found without inner paper seals, nullified petitioner’s proclamation, and constituted a new board of canvassers. Petitioner thus filed this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying petitioner’s proclamation and ordering the exclusion of election returns for lack of inner paper seals.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the COMELEC En Banc Resolution. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of pre-proclamation controversies and the ministerial function of boards of canvassers. The lack of inner paper seals on election returns is not a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code. Objections requiring the COMELEC to look beyond or behind returns that are prima facie regular—to examine evidence aliunde or determine the integrity of the ballots—must be raised in an election protest, not during canvassing.
The Court emphasized that a board of canvassers is an ad hoc body tasked with the ministerial function of tallying votes from returns that appear authentic and regular on their face. It cannot probe into allegations of irregularities not evident from the returns themselves. Here, the returns were not shown to be falsified or tampered on their face. Therefore, respondent’s proper remedy was to file a regular election protest where all factual and legal issues on the validity of the votes could be thoroughly ventilated. The COMELEC En Banc’s order to exclude the returns constituted a grave abuse of discretion as it violated this settled doctrine and effectively converted a pre-proclamation issue into a full-blown election contest.