G.R. No. L-52463 September 4, 1980
JESUS L. VILLEGAS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, LORENZO G. TEVES and the PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus L. Villegas filed an urgent petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to suspend the canvass of votes and cancel the certificate of candidacy of respondent Lorenzo G. Teves for the position of Provincial Governor of Negros Oriental. Villegas alleged that Teves committed various election offenses, including vote-buying and terrorism. The COMELEC, in a resolution dated February 2, 1980, denied the petition, ruling that the grounds alleged were proper for an election protest or criminal action, not a pre-proclamation controversy. On the same date, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed Teves as the duly-elected governor, having obtained 160,592 votes against Villegas’s 65,204. Villegas elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari and prohibition on February 5, 1980. By then, Teves had taken his oath, assumed office, and was exercising the functions of governor. Furthermore, Villegas himself had already filed a formal election protest with the COMELEC on February 9, 1980, based on the identical grounds raised in his pre-proclamation petition.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the pre-proclamation petition and whether the Supreme Court should compel the suspension of the canvass and proclamation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of pre-proclamation controversies and the factual circumstances that rendered the petition moot and academic. Under the 1973 Constitution, the COMELEC is the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections of provincial officials, encompassing both pre-proclamation suits and election protests. However, the grounds invoked by Villegas—specifically, irregularities in the conduct of the election such as vote-buying and terrorism—are not proper subjects of a pre-proclamation controversy, which typically involves issues like the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers or the authenticity of election returns. Such allegations require the examination of evidence and are more appropriately litigated in a regular election protest. The Court emphasized that at the time the petition was filed with the Supreme Court, a proclamation had already been made, and the winning candidate had assumed office. This fact alone rendered the plea to suspend the canvass and proclamation without legal purpose. Moreover, the petitioner had already availed himself of the correct remedy by filing an election protest, which was then pending before the COMELEC. Therefore, allowing the pre-proclamation suit to proceed would serve no useful purpose and would only cause unnecessary delay. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition and directing the recourse to an election protest.