G.R. No. L-22248 January 30, 1965
PATERNO JAVIER, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FELIX LOMUGDANG, respondents.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 elections for municipal mayor of Culasi, Antique, petitioner Paterno Javier and respondent Felix Lomugdang were candidates. During the canvass by the Municipal Board of Canvassers, a discrepancy was found in Precinct No. 4: the election return credited Lomugdang with 23 votes, but the tally board showed 83 votes. The Board of Inspectors for that precinct unanimously filed a verified petition with the Board of Canvassers, admitting a clerical error in transferring the votes from the tally board to the return and requesting permission to correct the return. The COMELEC representative, Atty. Tomas del Castillo, instructed the Board to suspend the canvass for mayor for that precinct. The Board did not heed this instruction or the inspectors’ petition. COMELEC, informed by telegram, ordered the suspension of the canvass for Precinct No. 4 and the proclamation. On the same day, Lomugdang filed a petition for judicial recount in the Court of First Instance of Antique. Despite these, the Board of Canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclaimed Javier as elected mayor. Consequently, the recount case was dismissed. On November 26, 1963, COMELEC promulgated a resolution declaring the canvass for mayor in Precinct No. 4 as made in disregard of a lawful order, annulling Javier’s proclamation as null and void, suspending the members of the Board of Canvassers, and authorizing Atty. Del Castillo to appoint replacements and hold a new canvass after the true count for Precinct No. 4 was determined. Javier filed this petition, arguing COMELEC gravely abused its discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in annulling the proclamation of petitioner Paterno Javier, suspending the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, and ordering a new canvass.

RULING

No, the Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its discretion. The proclamation of petitioner was null and void because it was made in violation of a lawful order from the COMELEC representative, which directive was proper under the circumstances. The verified unanimous petition of the Board of Inspectors, admitting a clerical mistake that materially affected the result, constituted a sufficient ground under Section 154 of the Election Code to justify correction and made the suspension of proclamation imperative to allow for judicial relief. The Board of Canvassers’ defiance of the lawful order was a valid cause for the suspension and replacement of its members under Section 167 of the Revised Election Code. The board was not functus officio in this context, as the canvass and proclamation were illegally made, and COMELEC has the power to order a new canvass even after a proclamation when a return is vitiated. The dismissal of the recount petition by the Court of First Instance, based on the fact of proclamation, does not constitute res judicata as the proclamation was null and void. The petition is dismissed.