G.R. No. 160130; April 14, 2004
ISIDRO IDULZA and GODOFREDO CABANA, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and TERESITA A. BOLLOZOS, REY L. MORTIZ, MIGUEL P. PADERANGA, JOJAC Q. ASUNCION and CIFERINO L. GARCIA, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Isidro Idulza and Godofredo Cabana were proclaimed as the 7th and 8th winning candidates for the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Gingoog City in the 2001 elections. Losing candidates Miguel Paderanga, Jojac Asuncion, and Ciferino Garcia, Jr. filed an election protest. After revision, the COMELEC Second Division found the protestants garnered more votes than the protestees. It also noted that Rey Mortiz, who was not a party to the protest, had received more votes than the protestants. Consequently, the Second Division granted the protest, declared the protestants as winners, ordered the protestees to vacate their posts, and proclaimed Mortiz as the 7th-place councilor.
The protestees moved for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. During its pendency, Teresita Bollozos, another losing candidate not originally a party to the case, filed a Motion for Intervention, claiming her vote total surpassed those of Asuncion and Garcia. The COMELEC En Banc partially affirmed the Second Division, upholding the appreciation of ballots and the proclamation of Mortiz. It also granted Bollozos’s intervention, proclaiming her as the 9th-place winner. It further declared the 10th seat vacant, ruling that Asuncion had abandoned his protest by subsequently running and winning as Punong Barangay.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) proclaiming Mortiz and Bollozos, who were not original parties to the election protest; and (2) its appreciation of the contested ballots.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. On the factual issue of ballot appreciation, the Court emphasized that such determination is best left to the COMELEC as the specialized constitutional body tasked with supervising elections. Its factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, are final and non-reviewable. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment by merely referencing a commissioner’s dissenting opinion without showing why the Court should overturn the collegial body’s conclusions.
On the legal issues, the Court upheld the proclamation of non-parties Mortiz and Bollozos. The COMELEC correctly considered Mortiz’s votes as these were established from the official records during the revision proceedings. Proclaiming him was necessary to give effect to the true will of the electorate, as he demonstrably received one of the highest vote totals. Similarly, the grant of Bollozos’s intervention, though filed beyond the typical period, was justified. Election cases involve public interest, and procedural rules should be liberally construed to achieve their paramount objective: to give effect to the sovereign will. Allowing her intervention served to correct an erroneous ranking and ensure the true winners were seated. The Court also sustained the COMELEC’s declaration of a vacancy for the 10th seat, citing the doctrine that a protestant who subsequently runs for and wins another elective office abandons the protest. Garcia, as the 11th placer, could not be proclaimed in Asuncion’s stead.