GR L 52502; (December, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-52502 December 30, 1982
MANUEL DISINI, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Disini and Gregoria Cauton were rival candidates for Municipal Mayor of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur in the January 30, 1980 elections. On January 31, 1980, Cauton filed a letter-protest with the Municipal Board of Canvassers, alleging rampant vote-buying, terrorism, and irregularities in several voting centers and seeking to exclude their election returns from the canvass. The COMELEC, via a telegram and subsequent order dated February 5, 1980, directed the board to suspend the canvass and exclude the returns from the specified precincts. Disini filed this petition for certiorari, challenging the COMELEC’s order and seeking to compel the canvassing of the remaining returns.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should nullify the COMELEC’s order suspending the canvass and excluding certain election returns, and order the completion of the canvass and proclamation.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of mootness and the judicial policy regarding pre-proclamation controversies post-proclamation. The Court noted a subsequent Manifestation from the COMELEC stating that its Third Division had already decided the related pre-proclamation cases on November 23, 1981. That COMELEC decision confirmed the exclusion of the contested returns and, crucially, confirmed Cauton’s proclamation as the winning candidate. Following the established doctrine in Venezuela v. Commission on Elections, the Court held that after an election has been held and a proclamation has been made, a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to file an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding. Since Cauton had already been proclaimed, Disini’s petition challenging the pre-proclamation orders of the COMELEC was rendered moot and academic. The Court emphasized that the objective of preventing prolonged delays in the assumption of office by the winning candidate is best served by directing the petitioner to the statutory remedy of an election protest.