G.R. No. 161984. February 21, 2007.
HAJI FAISAL D. ADAP, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SARIPODEN M. PANGCOGA, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were the proclaimed winning candidates for Punong Barangay in their respective barangays in Pagayawan, Lanao del Sur, following the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Respondents, who were candidates for barangay chairman in the same elections, filed a petition before the COMELEC for declaration of failure of elections and to annul petitioners’ proclamation. They alleged that the elections were not conducted in thirteen barangays because the Acting Treasurer failed to issue or distribute the official ballots, election forms, and paraphernalia, including the crucial Certificate of Canvass Form No. 25, to the Boards of Election Tellers.
The COMELEC En Banc, after trial, promulgated the assailed Resolution dated January 27, 2004. It found that a failure of elections did occur in the thirteen subject barangays. Consequently, it annulled the proclamation of petitioners, ordered them to vacate their offices, and directed that the petitioners-Punong Barangay (referring to the individual respondents who had been duly elected and proclaimed in the barangay elections prior to the 2002 polls) continue in a hold-over capacity until special elections could be held.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC En Banc commit grave abuse of discretion in: (1) declaring a failure of elections; (2) not examining the election paraphernalia inside the ballot boxes; and (3) ordering the prior elected officials to hold over in office?

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. On the first issue, the Court emphasized that the propriety of declaring a failure of elections is a factual matter where the COMELEC’s expertise is accorded great respect. The COMELEC’s finding—based on evidence including the Acting Treasurer’s admission that he did not release the critical election documents—that no voting took place due to the non-distribution of ballots and forms, was binding absent any showing of capriciousness. Petitioners’ claim that the COMELEC ruled on barangays not covered by the petition was inaccurate, as the Resolution specifically pertained to the thirteen barangays named in the respondents’ petition.
On the second issue, the Court held that a physical examination of the ballot boxes was unnecessary. The core question was whether elections were held at all. The COMELEC correctly focused on the threshold fact of whether ballots were distributed and voting commenced, which it found did not happen. Examining empty or irrelevant ballot boxes would have been a futile exercise.
On the third issue, the Court upheld the COMELEC’s order for hold-over authority. Applying Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9164 and related statutes, the Court ruled that incumbent elective barangay officials may continue in office in a hold-over capacity until their successors are elected and qualified. This principle ensures continuity in government and prevents a hiatus in public service. The individual respondents, being the last duly elected and qualified officials prior to the failed 2002 elections, were the proper incumbents to hold over pending the special elections.