GR 166105; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166105 March 22, 2007
ATTY. GABRIEL B. OCTAVA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., and JOSEFO BITONES LUBIGAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gabriel Octava and private respondent Josefo Lubigan were candidates for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Trece Martires City, Cavite, in the May 10, 2004 elections. The City Board of Canvassers (CBOC) proclaimed Octava as the 10th and last winning member. Lubigan filed a petition with the COMELEC, alleging a clerical error in the Statements of Votes (SOVs). He claimed he received 7,740 votes but was credited with only 7,540, while Octava was credited with 7,656 votes. Lubigan argued that with the correct tally, he would have been the winner. The CBOC admitted to the tabulation error.
Octava opposed the petition, contending that the CBOC records showed no manifest errors and that no objections were raised during the canvass. He argued that after his proclamation, the proper remedy was an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding, not a pre-proclamation controversy. The COMELEC granted Lubigan’s petition, annulled Octava’s proclamation, and directed the CBOC to reconvene, correct the SOVs, and proclaim the rightful winner.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in annulling Octava’s proclamation and ordering the correction of the Statement of Votes.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition filed by Lubigan was properly treated as one for the correction of manifest errors in the SOVs, a pre-proclamation controversy allowed under Section 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669. Such a petition can be filed within five days following a proclamation, a condition met in this case. The Court emphasized that technicalities of procedure must yield to the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate to ascertain, by all feasible means, the will of the electorate.
The Court also found no denial of due process. Octava was duly summoned, filed an answer, and was given ample opportunity to be heard through pleadings. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, which was afforded. The COMELEC’s action, based on the CBOC’s own admission of an error, was a valid exercise of its administrative authority to correct clerical mistakes to ensure the true results of the election are reflected. The assailed Resolutions were affirmed.