GR 95016; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95016 ; February 11, 1991
CONRADO C. LINDO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, OCTAVIO D. VELASCO AND THE HON. ENRIQUE ALMARIO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch XV, Trece Martires City, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Conrado Lindo and private respondent Octavio Velasco were candidates for mayor of Ternate, Cavite, in the 1988 elections. Lindo was proclaimed winner. Velasco filed an election protest covering 17 precincts. During the revision, Lindo objected to ballots from several precincts, including Precincts Nos. 9, 9-A, 10, and 11, alleging tampering. The trial court initially excluded these ballots, but the COMELEC, affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 88337, ordered their revision, which was completed. The trial court then rendered a decision on February 6, 1990, proclaiming Lindo the winner by 29 votes based solely on the revised results from the 17 contested precincts.
Velasco received a copy of the decision on February 16, 1990, and filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC on February 17. Lindo claimed he learned of the decision only on February 22 and filed his notice of appeal on February 26. The trial court gave due course to Velasco’s appeal but denied Lindo’s for being filed out of time. The COMELEC First Division, on appeal, reversed the trial court. It ruled that the true winner must be determined based on the total valid votes from all 22 precincts of the municipality, not just the contested ones. Including the results from the five uncontested precincts, Velasco emerged the winner. The COMELEC En Banc denied Lindo’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the election protest winner must be determined based on the total valid votes from all precincts of the municipality, including those not contested.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The legal logic is clear: an election protest seeks to determine the candidate who obtained the plurality of valid votes in the entire constituency. The trial court erred in basing its proclamation solely on the revised results from the 17 contested precincts. The correct procedure, as upheld by the COMELEC, requires the court to add the results from the uncontested precincts—where the canvassed results stand unchallenged—to the revised results from the contested precincts to ascertain the true will of the electorate for the entire municipality. This principle ensures that the protest resolves the overall result, not just a partial recount. The Court also noted that Lindo’s appeal to the trial court was correctly denied as untimely, and his substantive objections to the four precincts had already been conclusively settled in the prior final decision in G.R. No. 88337.