GR 53619; (November, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53619 November 21, 1980
MODESTA R. SABENIANO, et al., petitioners, vs. COMELEC, THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS of Dagupan City, CIPRIANO M. MANAOIS, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Nacionalista Party candidates for local offices in Dagupan City, contested the January 30, 1980 elections. The City Board of Canvassers completed its canvass and proclaimed the private respondents, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan candidates, as winners on February 1, 1980. On February 5, 1980, petitioners filed a petition with the COMELEC (Election Case No. 238) seeking annulment of the election, canvass, and proclamation. They alleged lack of notice, undue haste, tampering, falsification of election returns, and other irregularities. The COMELEC initially suspended the proclamation on February 8, 1980, but upon a motion for reconsideration by the private respondents, it reinstated the proclamation via Resolution No. 9102 on February 14, 1980. The COMELEC ruled that the grounds raised by petitioners were proper for an election protest, not a pre-proclamation controversy.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ pre-proclamation controversy and reinstating the proclamation of the winning candidates.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The legal logic centers on the distinction between pre-proclamation controversies and election protests, and the limited scope of certiorari review over COMELEC resolutions. A pre-proclamation controversy is limited to challenges against the board of canvassers and involves issues arising from the canvassing of returns, such as their authenticity or correctness. The grounds raised by petitioners—specifically tampering, falsification, and irregularities before, during, and after the voting—necessarily require the examination of evidence aliunde and the appreciation of ballots, which is beyond the summary nature of a pre-proclamation proceeding. Such grounds are properly adjudicated in a regular election protest. The COMELEC correctly characterized the petition as one properly falling under an election protest, over which it retains jurisdiction, but not as a pre-proclamation case warranting the annulment of the canvass and proclamation. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioners failed to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence, and the respondent Board of Canvassers adequately refuted the allegations regarding notice and the integrity of the returns. The Court’s certiorari jurisdiction over COMELEC decisions is confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a patent denial of due process. The COMELEC’s resolution was supported by substantial evidence and the parties were accorded due process in the summary proceedings. The dismissal was without prejudice to the election protests petitioners had subsequently filed.