GR L 1882; (April, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1882; April 10, 1948
MATEO RAMOS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BATO MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, CAMARINES SUR, and OSMUNDO POSUGAC, respondents.
FACTS
Osmundo Posugac was proclaimed mayor-elect of Bato, Camarines Sur, by the municipal board of canvassers on November 16, 1947. The next day, the local representative of the Nationalista Party filed a complaint with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), seeking investigation and annulment of the canvass on the ground that the board used a falsified election return from Precinct No. 10 instead of the genuine one. On December 12, 1947, COMELEC resolved to abstain from investigating due to a pending election protest filed by petitioner Mateo Ramos in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, seeking to nullify Posugac’s election. After failing to secure reconsideration, Ramos filed this original action for mandamus to compel COMELEC to act, order a new canvass including the genuine return, and proclaim him as mayor-elect.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to investigate and act on the complaint regarding the alleged use of a falsified election return, such that it may be compelled by mandamus to do so.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court, in a 55 vote (resulting in denial of the petition under Rule 56, section 2 of the Rules of Court), held that the COMELEC’s function in such matters is discretionary, not ministerial. Therefore, mandamus does not lie to compel action. The Court distinguished this case from Mintu v. Enage (G.R. No. L-1834), where COMELEC annulled a canvass for excluding returns, as that involved a ministerial duty to include all returns. Here, the board had already canvassed one of two contradictory returns, and determining which is genuine requires evidentiary proceedingsa judicial function properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance via an election protest. The Court noted that specific legal remedies (e.g., recount petitions under Sections 163 and 168, and election protests under Section 174 of the Revised Election Code) are available to candidates within short timeframes, relieving COMELEC from the duty to conduct similar investigations. The COMELEC, with limited personnel, cannot be expected to adjudicate all such complaints nationwide. The pending election protest in the Court of First Instance is the proper venue to address the alleged fraud.
AI Generated by Armztrong.