G.R. No. 172131; April 2, 2007
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RENATO J. UNICO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato and respondent Renato J. Unico were candidates for the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte in the May 10, 2004 elections. During the canvass by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Labo, Chato’s counsel raised objections, pointing to alleged manifest errors and discrepancies in various election returns. The MBC granted her 24 hours to substantiate her claims. However, before the deadline lapsed and without notice, the MBC concluded the canvass and forwarded the results to the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC). Chato’s subsequent motions before the PBC to suspend proceedings and remand the matter to the MBC were denied. The PBC proclaimed Unico as the winner, reasoning that pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed for members of the House of Representatives and that her allegations were proper for an election protest.
Chato filed a petition with the COMELEC, seeking to correct/nullify election returns due to manifest errors, such as discrepancies between the number of ballots and voters, entries appearing to be written by one person, and missing data. The COMELEC First Division dismissed her petition, a ruling affirmed by the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC held that the relief she sought constituted a re-count, which is not a mere correction of manifest errors, and that her proper remedy was an election protest.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Chato’s petition to correct manifest errors in the election returns, thereby affirming the proclamation of Unico.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COMELEC’s resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the clear statutory prohibition under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166 and Section 31 of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669, which explicitly disallow pre-proclamation controversies for the position of Member of the House of Representatives concerning matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns. The only exception is the correction of manifest errors, which are errors visible to the eye or obvious from the face of the returns, requiring no extraneous evidence.
The Court ruled that Chato’s allegations—requiring the examination of ballots, comparison of handwriting, and validation of voter data—went beyond the scope of correcting patent, arithmetic errors. Her petition essentially sought a re-examination and re-appreciation of the returns, which is a verification of their authenticity and a re-count of votes. This is precisely the kind of pre-proclamation controversy prohibited by law for congressional elections. The proper recourse for such substantive challenges to the election returns is a regular election protest filed with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, where evidence can be fully ventilated. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition for lack of merit, as its ruling was consistent with the law and jurisprudence.