G.R. No. 80868 March 3, 1988
JUDGE RODOLFO T. ALLARDE, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LAS PIÑAS-MUNTINLUPA AND DR. FILEMON C. AGUILAR.

FACTS

Petitioner Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde, a congressional candidate in the May 11, 1987 elections for the Las Piñas-Muntinlupa district, filed a petition (SPC No. 87-201) with the COMELEC seeking to suspend the canvass and annul its results. He alleged massive fraud, falsified or tampered election returns, irregularities in canvassing, and vote-buying, contending that receiving zero votes in numerous precincts was statistically impossible given his stature. Another candidate, Lucina Teodoro, filed a separate petition (SPC No. 87-197). Upon intervenor Filemon Aguilar’s motion, the COMELEC’s Second Division, after a joint trial agreed upon by the parties, dismissed both petitions on July 13, 1987, and ordered the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winner.
Allarde moved for reconsideration, arguing a denial of due process because the two cases were not formally consolidated per the Rules of Court and he was not an intervenor in Teodoro’s case. The COMELEC En Banc dismissed his motion and petition in its decision dated December 7, 1987. Allarde then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, seeking to annul the COMELEC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Allarde’s petition and in its conduct of the proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court held that Allarde’s procedural objections regarding the joint hearing and alleged lack of due process were thoroughly addressed and found without merit by the COMELEC En Banc. On substantive grounds, the Court ruled that allegations of massive fraud, vote-buying, and the miscrediting of votes are proper subjects for an election protest, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal, not a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code.
While some grounds, like falsified or tampered returns, are cognizable in a pre-proclamation case, Allarde failed to comply with the mandatory prerequisite under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, as established in Espaldon v. COMELEC. He did not raise his objections before the Board of Canvassers during the canvassing, making his direct recourse to the COMELEC an impermissible procedural shortcut. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the doctrine from Robles v. COMELEC that election returns can only be excluded upon the clearest showing of nullity to avoid disenfranchising voters, a standard Allarde failed to meet. Finally, the proclamation of Aguilar and his subsequent assumption of office rendered a pre-proclamation controversy moot, as held in cases like Syjuco v. COMELEC. The dismissal was without prejudice to Allarde filing an appropriate election protest with the House Electoral Tribunal.