GR 166542; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166542 ; July 25, 2006
NILO L. DOJILLO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RODRIGO N. VIDAL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nilo L. Dojillo and respondent Rodrigo N. Vidal were candidates for Punong Barangay of Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan in the July 2002 elections. The Board of Election Tellers proclaimed Vidal the winner with 374 votes against Dojillo’s 371. Dojillo filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which, after a revision and appreciation of ballots, declared him the winner by nine votes and nullified Vidal’s proclamation. Vidal appealed to the COMELEC.
The COMELEC Second Division, after its own examination of the contested ballots, reversed the MCTC and reinstated Vidal as the winner. Dojillo filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. Pending this motion, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Status Quo Ante Order, reinstating Vidal to the position. The En Banc later affirmed the Second Division’s ruling, leading Dojillo to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the contested ballots, which altered the vote totals and the election results.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC En Banc’s final resolution, proclaiming Rodrigo N. Vidal the duly elected Punong Barangay. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC is vested with ample authority to review, revise, and reverse the factual findings of trial courts in election cases, including the appreciation of ballots. This power is not limited to determining if the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion; the COMELEC can conduct an independent evaluation.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s specific rulings on the contested ballots. It upheld the COMELEC’s decision to credit certain ballots to Vidal that the MCTC had invalidated as marked. For instance, a ballot containing the phrase “Vidal Kap” was correctly counted for Vidal, as “Kap” is a common abbreviation for “Kapitan” and did not constitute a distinguishing mark. Conversely, the Court agreed with the COMELEC’s exclusion of a ballot for Dojillo containing the superfluous phrase “Nilo Dojillo Barangay Captain,” which served as a identifying mark. The COMELEC’s factual findings, derived from its physical examination of the ballots, are accorded respect and finality unless shown to be devoid of rational basis. As no such showing was made, the COMELEC’s final tally of 374 votes for Vidal and 372 for Dojillo was sustained. However, the Court set aside the interlocutory Status Quo Ante Order as it had been superseded by the final resolution.