GR 171063; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171063, March 2, 2007
EDUARD V. TUGADE, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FLORENCIO P. AGUSTIN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eduard V. Tugade and private respondent Florencio P. Agustin were candidates for Punong Barangay of San Raymundo, Balungao, Pangasinan in the July 15, 2002 elections. The initial canvass showed Tugade winning by one vote, with 246 votes against Agustin’s 245. Agustin filed an election protest. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC), after a revision and recount of ballots from the contested precinct, rendered a decision declaring Agustin the winner with a final tally of 246 votes to Tugade’s 242.
Tugade appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC Second Division, after its own appreciation of the contested ballots, recalculated the votes and found that both candidates had obtained exactly 246 votes each, resulting in a tie. The COMELEC reversed the MTC and ordered the Barangay Board of Canvassers to reconvene and resolve the tie by drawing of lots pursuant to Section 240 of the Omnibus Election Code. Tugade filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, which was denied for procedural deficiencies including failure to file within the reglementary period, non-payment of motion fees, lack of proper verification, and insufficient copies.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution and Order.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The Court held that the COMELEC’s factual determination—that a tie existed after a proper recount and appreciation of ballots—is final and not subject to review via certiorari, absent any showing of arbitrariness or capriciousness. The COMELEC, as the constitutional body vested with exclusive authority to decide all questions relating to elections, acted within its jurisdiction in appreciating the ballots and arriving at the tied vote.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc correctly denied Tugade’s motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with mandatory procedural rules. The requirements for payment of fees, verification, and the filing period are not mere technicalities but essential to the orderly administration of justice. Tugade’s non-compliance warranted the denial of his motion. Consequently, the COMELEC’s order for a drawing of lots to break the tie, as expressly mandated by Section 240 of the Omnibus Election Code, was a valid and ministerial implementation of the law. The petition, being a mere reiteration of issues already resolved by the COMELEC without demonstrating any jurisdictional error, was without merit.