G.R. No. L-53793 and L-54277, June 29, 1981
Leonor A. Garcia vs. The Commission on Elections, et al. / Honorato C. Perez, Sr. vs. The Commission on Elections and Leonor A. Garcia

FACTS

Two consolidated petitions arose from the January 30, 1980 mayoralty election in Cabanatuan City. The City Board of Canvassers proclaimed Honorato C. Perez, Sr. as the winner on March 27, 1980. Leonor A. Garcia filed a pre-proclamation controversy with the COMELEC, assailing the exclusion of forty election returns which contained over 9,700 votes. Garcia argued these returns were wrongfully nullified based merely on affidavits from Perez’s partisan watchers, despite official affidavits from the public school teachers composing the Citizens Election Committees and supporting reports from military authorities. The exclusion erased Garcia’s lead and made Perez appear the victor. Separately, Perez challenged the COMELEC’s reinstatement of Garcia’s election protest.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in summarily excluding the forty election returns in the pre-proclamation controversy, thereby effectively determining the election result without a full trial on the merits.

RULING

The Court, through the main decision by Justice Makasiar, dismissed Garcia’s petition (G.R. No. L-53793) and upheld the COMELEC’s exclusion of the returns. It applied the principles from Usman v. COMELEC and Aratuc v. COMELEC, which allow for summary proceedings and exclusion of returns where allegations of terrorism, fraud, or irregularities are substantiated, even by affidavits, and where the evidence on record supports the finding. The Court found the COMELEC’s factual determination to be supported by evidence and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Chief Justice Fernando, in a separate concurring opinion, agreed with the result but on different grounds. He expressed a preference for the general rule in Laguda v. COMELEC, which favors relegating such disputes to a regular election protest to minimize pre-proclamation controversies. However, he concurred because Perez had already been proclaimed and had discharged the duties of mayor for over a year. He reasoned that overturning the proclamation at that late stage would cause instability and disrupt public interest, emphasizing the need for the Court to consider the “environmental facts” and realities of the situation.
Justice Teehankee, in a separate dissenting and concurring opinion, dissented in the first case. He argued the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by excluding the returns based on unreliable, partisan affidavits while ignoring official affidavits and reports that enjoyed the presumption of regularity. He contended this violated the controlling doctrine in Aratuc that pre-proclamation proceedings should be summary and not used to deprive a winning candidate of their victory margin without a full trial. He voted to grant Garcia’s petition and proclaim her mayor. In the second case (G.R. No. 54277), he concurred in dismissing Perez’s petition, agreeing that Garcia’s election protest should be reinstated for a proper trial on the merits.