G.R. No. L-53354 July 22, 1985
CARLOS BATINO JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were Nacionalista Party candidates in the 1980 local elections for Tagaytay City. The City Board of Canvassers, convened at the COMELEC central office, canvassed 26 election returns but excluded the returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19. The Board elevated the matter to the COMELEC without proclaiming any winners. On March 1, 1980, the COMELEC issued a resolution declaring the two returns “spurious or manufactured” and ordered their exclusion from the canvass. The Board then completed the canvass and proclaimed the winning candidates, all from the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. The final tally showed petitioners losing by narrow margins.
Petitioners filed this certiorari petition, arguing that the inclusion of the two contested returns would have altered the election results in their favor. They sought to annul the COMELEC resolution and the subsequent proclamation, and to compel the Board to canvass the excluded returns. The COMELEC justified its exclusion of the return for Voting Center No. 11 based on several circumstances, including alleged intimidation of teachers and COMELEC personnel, delay in the counting, and irregularities in the preparation of the return. For Voting Center No. 19, it cited a discrepancy between the number of voters who actually voted and the number of ballots cast.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in excluding the election returns from Voting Centers Nos. 11 and 19 from the canvass.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the COMELEC resolution, and ordered the inclusion and canvass of the two election returns. The Court, through Justice de la Fuente, held that the COMELEC’s action constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine that where actual voting has taken place, election returns are accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results. Their exclusion from the canvass is an extreme measure that results in the disenfranchisement of voters and should be done only upon the most clear and convincing proof.
The Court found that the grounds cited by the COMELEC for excluding the returns did not constitute the requisite “most convincing proof” that they were spurious or manufactured. The circumstances for Voting Center No. 11 were largely based on allegations of irregularities in the conduct of the election, not on the facial authenticity of the return itself. For Voting Center No. 19, the discrepancy in numbers was not sufficiently established as a fatal flaw justifying summary exclusion. The proper recourse for challenging the returns based on such grounds is a regular election protest, where evidence can be fully ventilated, not a pre-proclamation controversy where the canvass should be summary in nature. By excluding the returns on these bases, the COMELEC effectively disenfranchised the voters in those precincts without the strong evidence required by law and jurisprudence.