G.R. Nos. 90507-10 and 90531-32; January 23, 1991
MAXIMO B. DALOG, et al. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROY S. PILANDO and LOUIS CLAVER, JR.; LOUIS F. CLAVER, JR. and EDUARDO O. AKIATE, SR. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions for certiorari arose from the canvass of votes for Provincial Governor and Sangguniang Panlalawigan members of Mountain Province in the January 18, 1988 elections. The Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC), amidst chaotic proceedings and a failure to strictly follow statutory procedure under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code, issued a resolution on March 17, 1988, excluding twenty-one and including thirty-seven disputed election returns. Various candidates appealed to the COMELEC, which consolidated the cases. The COMELEC Second Division, after meticulous review, issued a decision on May 9, 1989, which was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc on October 23, 1989. The En Banc resolution directed the PBC to include six specific returns from Bauko and Tadian and to exclude fifteen specific returns from Sabangan, Bauko, and Tadian to complete the canvass.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its resolution directing the inclusion and exclusion of specific election returns.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s factual determinations, emphasizing its constitutional mandate to decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections. The COMELEC’s findings were based on its examination of the contested returns and evaluation of witness testimonies, concluding that the excluded returns were statistically improbable, tampered, or otherwise spurious, while the included returns were authentic and regular. The Court ruled that Dalog’s new plea for a recount before the Supreme Court was waived due to his failure to raise it before the PBC or COMELEC, where he had consistently taken the stance that the returns were genuine. A recount at this stage would unduly delay the proclamation. Similarly, Claver’s petition, alleging the COMELEC passed sub silencio on other returns, lacked merit as the COMELEC En Banc’s affirmation of the Second Division’s inclusion of those returns was implied, and the objections thereto pertained to mere formal defects, not the integrity of the results. The Court noted that the proper remedy for the petitioners to question the correctness of the election returns was a regular election protest, where a recount could be pursued.