G.R. No. 167314 March 20, 2007
LUISITO O. CUMIGAD, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF GAMU, ISABELA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Luisito O. Cumigad was proclaimed the sixth winning candidate for municipal councilor of Gamu, Isabela, after the May 10, 2004 elections. Subsequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) filed a memorandum with the COMELEC, alleging a “manifest error” in the proclamation after noting variances between its official tally and the separate counts of NAMFREL and PPCRV. The MBOC requested authority to reconvene, reopen the canvassed election returns, and make corrections. The petition was signed only by the MBOC Chairperson and the Secretary, with the Vice-Chairperson notably not signing.
Petitioner opposed, arguing that a mere variance between the official MBOC tally and the unofficial counts of NAMFREL/PPCRV does not constitute a “manifest error” warranting a correction of the Statement of Votes. He further contended that the MBOC’s request was essentially for a recount, which is improper in a summary correction proceeding. The COMELEC Second Division granted the MBOC’s petition, ordering it to reconvene and correct manifest errors. This was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the MBOC to reconvene and correct alleged manifest errors based solely on variances with unofficial NAMFREL and PPCRV counts.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the COMELEC resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the strict, limited definition of “manifest error” in election canvassing. Under COMELEC rules, a manifest error refers to specific, clerical mistakes in the tabulation or addition, apparent on the face of the election returns or certificates of canvass themselves, such as double tabulation, mistakes in copying figures, or mathematical errors in addition. It does not encompass a re-examination of the contents of the returns or a re-evaluation of the validity of the votes cast based on external, unofficial reports.
The Court held that the alleged error here was not manifest. The MBOC’s claim was based not on an internal review of its own documents revealing a clerical mistake, but on an external comparison with the unofficial tallies of NAMFREL and PPCRV. Such variances do not prove that a clerical error occurred during the MBOC’s own canvass; they merely indicate a discrepancy between an official count and unofficial parallel counts. To allow a correction based on this would permit a de facto recount under the guise of correction, undermining the finality of proclamation and encroaching on the exclusive jurisdiction of election courts over election protests involving the examination of ballots or returns. The COMELEC’s order, therefore, lacked legal basis and constituted grave abuse of discretion.