G.R. No. 84462 -63 and G.R. No. 84678-79, March 29, 1989
Gabriel Casimiro and UNIDO Party, petitioners, vs. Hon. Commission on Elections, Las Pinas Board of Canvassers, Rosalino Riguera, et al., respondents. Rustico Antonio, et al., petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections, Las Pinas Board of Canvassers, Jaime Martin, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, led by mayoral candidate Gabriel Casimiro, challenged the canvassing of votes and subsequent proclamation of Rosalino Riguera as Mayor of Las Piñas in the 1988 local elections. They filed several petitions before the COMELEC (SPC Nos. 88-210, 88-218, 88-360, and 88-619), alleging irregularities in the election returns and the canvassing proceedings, including the transfer of the canvassing venue to the COMELEC main office. They sought to suspend the canvass, nullify the proclamation, and order a recanvass.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed all petitions in a consolidated Decision dated March 25, 1988, lifting a prior restraining order and directing the Board of Canvassers to complete the canvass and proclaim winning candidates. Riguera was subsequently proclaimed. The COMELEC en banc denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration on June 8, 1988, and a subsequent Motion for Clarification on July 13, 1988. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari and mandamus, seeking to annul the COMELEC resolutions, nullify Riguera’s proclamation, and order a recanvass.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the pre-proclamation controversies and in affirming the proclamation of the winning candidates.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of pre-proclamation controversies and the ministerial duty of the Board of Canvassers. The Court emphasized that pre-proclamation controversies are limited to challenges against the board of canvassers and involve issues apparent from the face of the election returns. Petitioners’ allegations of irregularities, such as tampering and statistical improbabilities, required examination of evidence beyond the returns, which is the proper subject of an election protest, not a pre-proclamation case.
The COMELEC correctly found petitioners’ evidence, largely consisting of self-serving affidavits, insufficient to substantiate their claims. Furthermore, the proclamation was lawful and ministerial, executed pursuant to the COMELEC’s March 25, 1988 Decision, which ordered the board to complete the canvass and proclaim winners. The proclamation occurred before petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, negating the claim of impropriety. Critically, with the winning candidates already proclaimed and having assumed office, the petitions ceased to be viable pre-proclamation controversies. The proper remedy for petitioners is an election protest, where evidence can be thoroughly examined and witnesses confronted. Therefore, the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction, and the petitions were dismissed.