GR 53062 53345; (April, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53062 and 53345 April 24, 1981
Espiridion Jagunap, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Adolfo Jaen, respondents. Adolfo Jaen, cross-petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, cross-respondent.
FACTS
In the January 30, 1980 elections for Mayor of Leganes, Iloilo, the initial canvass showed Espiridion Jagunap (KBL) leading Adolfo Jaen (Nacionalista Party) by 86 votes. Before Jagunap’s proclamation, Jaen filed a petition with the COMELEC (Case No. PP 280) to suspend proclamation and nullify returns, alleging material defects, falsification, and tampering. The COMELEC initially issued Resolution No. 9278 on February 25, 1980, ordering a recount and recanvass in all 30 voting centers. The recount resulted in Jaen winning by 107 votes, and he was proclaimed mayor on March 1, 1980.
Subsequently, the COMELEC reconsidered and issued Resolution No. 9431 on March 1, 1980, annulling Jaen’s proclamation. The COMELEC found its earlier recount order was based on the erroneous assumption that the Municipal Board of Canvassers failed to answer Jaen’s petition, when in fact the board had not received the order. It also noted serious questions regarding Jaen’s party affiliation and ruled that the recount involved illegal ballot appreciation. The COMELEC thus dismissed Jaen’s petition and ordered a proclamation based on the original canvass, leading to Jagunap’s proclamation on March 2, 1980. Both parties elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in annulling the recount and Jaen’s subsequent proclamation, and in ordering Jagunap’s proclamation based on the original canvass.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed Jagunap’s petition and granted Jaen’s cross-petition, thereby upholding Jaen’s March 1, 1980 proclamation. The Court ruled that the COMELEC’s power to order a recount in a pre-proclamation controversy is limited to cases of discrepancies in election returns, not for the purpose of examining ballots or resolving questions of fraud or irregularity which properly belong in an election protest. However, the legal logic centered on the principle of due process and the finality of a validly executed proclamation.
The Court found that the COMELEC’s Resolution No. 9278 (ordering the recount) was issued without notice and hearing to Jagunap, constituting a denial of due process. Despite this initial flaw, the subsequent recount and proclamation of Jaen were fully executed under the authority of that COMELEC resolution before it was reconsidered. The COMELEC’s later attempt to annul these completed acts via Resolution No. 9431 was itself a grave abuse of discretion. Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed and has assumed office, the proper remedy for any aggrieved party is to file an election contest or a quo warranto proceeding, not to continue with the pre-proclamation controversy. Therefore, Jaen’s proclamation, having been effected under a then-unchallenged COMELEC order, must stand, and his remedy against any alleged irregularities is a regular election protest.