GR L 29199; (March, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29199 March 28, 1969
CLENIO L. ONDONA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CAGWAIT, SURIGAO DEL SUR and ADELFO LUENGAS, respondents.
FACTS
Following the November 14, 1967 elections in Cagwait, Surigao del Sur, the municipal board of canvassers, composed of four members, canvassed the votes on November 16, 1967, and proclaimed Adelfo Luengas as mayor with 1372 votes, defeating Clenio L. Ondona who received 1351 votes. On the same date, Ondona filed a petition with the Election Registrar for the annulment of the canvass and proclamation, citing grounds of lack of quorum, failure to notify candidates and the election registrar, and the absence of three councilor members from the board. Ondona also filed an election protest before the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur on November 29, 1967. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) received Ondona’s annulment petition on December 29, 1967, and dismissed it on January 16, 1968, finding the canvass validly made by a majority of four members and noting that a recanvass would not change the result. Ondona moved for reconsideration. During the hearing of the election protest on May 17, 1968, Ondona’s counsel, opposing a postponement, manifested an intention to withdraw the pending motion for reconsideration before Comelec to allow the protest to proceed. The trial court proceeded and, on May 23, 1968, decided in favor of Luengas. Comelec then denied Ondona’s motion for reconsideration on June 18, 1968, citing the court’s decision. Ondona appealed the Comelec resolutions to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections erred in dismissing petitioner Ondona’s petition for the annulment of the canvass and proclamation of respondent Luengas.
RULING
No, the Commission on Elections did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the Comelec resolutions. The Court held that petitioner Ondona, by insisting on proceeding with the election protest in the Court of First Instance and manifesting an intention to withdraw his motion for reconsideration before Comelec, recognized the validity of the proclamation and abandoned his petition for annulment. Having lost in the election protest, he cannot be permitted to fall back on the Comelec petition to nullify the very proclamation upon which his protest was based. This conduct was deemed unfair and inequitable. The Court concluded that Ondona had no cause for complaint.