GR 175112; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175112 ; April 24, 2007
DAVID K. SALAZAR, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MIGUELA M. DOLORIEL, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner David K. Salazar and private respondent Miguela M. Doloriel were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion, Bislig City, in the July 15, 2002 elections. Doloriel was initially proclaimed the winner with 1,399 votes against Salazar’s 1,374, a margin of 25 votes. Salazar filed an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). After a revision of ballots, the MTCC annulled Doloriel’s proclamation, finding Salazar the winner with 1,025 votes to Doloriel’s 919, and ordered Doloriel to vacate the post in favor of Salazar.
Doloriel appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division, after examining the ballots under the rules for appreciation in Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846, reversed the MTCC. It found Doloriel the winner by a margin of 28 votes. Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc, which affirmed the First Division’s ruling with a modification, finalizing the tally at 1,398 votes for Doloriel and 1,376 for Salazar, a winning margin of 22 votes.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that private respondent Doloriel is the duly elected Punong Barangay.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, occurring when a tribunal violates the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. The Court found that the COMELEC’s resolutions were firmly based on the evidence on record and a meticulous application of the specific rules for ballot appreciation under Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4846, which governs the elections in question.
The COMELEC correctly applied provisions such as counting a vote for a candidate whose surname sounds similar to a written first name, validating ballots with prefixes or suffixes, and accepting the use of nicknames when the candidate is popularly known by them. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the COMELEC, supported by substantial evidence as in this case, are generally conclusive and binding. Since the COMELEC’s appreciation of the contested ballots was in strict consonance with the applicable rules and settled jurisprudence, no grave abuse of discretion attended its decision. The petition was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.