G.R. No. L-31566, August 31, 1970
ROGELIO O. TIGLAO, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CORNELIO SANGA and THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PAMPANGA, Respondents.

FACTS

This is a sequel to the Court’s February 18, 1970 judgment in Case L-31566, which set aside a COMELEC resolution and directed the proclamation for Congressman of Pampanga’s second district be held in abeyance pending final determination of questions in the Pampanga Court of First Instance. Among these were seven ex-parte petitions for judicial correction of election returns under Section 151 of the Revised Election Code, filed by boards of election inspectors. The Pampanga court, in a February 7, 1970 decision, authorized correction of returns from six San Luis precincts, crediting petitioner Tiglao with 292 additional votes, which would overcome respondent Sanga’s 247-vote margin. After the Supreme Court’s February 18 decision, the Pampanga court maintained its correction order. Following Supreme Court directives, the boards of inspectors convened before a COMELEC committee and made the authorized corrections on the returns. Sanga’s counsel objected to the corrections in four precincts on identity grounds, but the committee and COMELEC overruled these objections. When the provincial board reconvened, Sanga moved to disregard the six corrected returns as “mathematically improbable” because the votes for congressional candidates exceeded the registered voters. The board referred the issue to COMELEC, which, in a split resolution, ordered the board not to include the six returns in the canvass for being mathematically improbable and to proclaim the winner. Tiglao filed a motion to enforce judgment/petition for certiorari, challenging COMELEC’s authority to review and vacate the Pampanga court’s correction decision. The Supreme Court issued a restraining order.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the jurisdiction and authority to review, set aside, and exclude from the canvass election returns that have been judicially corrected by a Court of First Instance under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, on the ground that the corrected returns are “mathematically improbable.”

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC lacks jurisdiction and authority to review the judicial correction ordered by the Pampanga court as the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code. The judicial resolution of the inspectors’ petition for correction of returns is final and executory for the purpose of the canvass. COMELEC may not collaterally attack and discard the Pampanga court’s ruling. Assuming the Pampanga court erred, COMELEC’s remedy is not to exclude the returns but to proceed with the canvass and proclamation, leaving the matter of the returns’ validity to be resolved in the corresponding electoral protest. The Court noted that the issue of excess votes arose because due notice of the correction petitions was not given to the affected candidates, leading to ex-parte proceedings. However, this did not empower COMELEC to review the judicial order. The Court set aside the COMELEC resolution and directed the board of canvassers to reconvene, include the six corrected returns in the canvass, and proclaim the winning candidate.