G.R. No. L-58309-10 February 25, 1982
MANGACOP MANGCA, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ALINADER DAGAR BALINDONG, respondents.

FACTS

After the January 30, 1980 local elections in Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur, rival mayoral candidates Alinader Dagar Balindong and Mangacop Mangca filed separate pre-proclamation cases with the COMELEC. Balindong filed PP Case No. 158 seeking the counting, canvassing, and proclamation of winners. Mangca filed PP Case No. 426 seeking the annulment of the elections due to alleged failure of election. On March 10, 1980, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9520 in PP Case No. 158, ordering the canvass and proclamation. Consequently, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Balindong as mayor-elect on March 18, 1980.
Mangca moved for reconsideration, praying for a suspension of the proclamation and a declaration of failure of election. The COMELEC initially suspended the effects of Resolution No. 9520 on March 26, 1980. However, on March 31, 1981, the COMELEC’s Third Division issued the contested resolution reviving the effects of Resolution No. 9520, thereby allowing Balindong and other proclaimed candidates to assume office. It also dismissed PP Case No. 426 without prejudice to the filing of an election protest or quo warranto. Mangca’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 16, 1981, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions dated March 31, 1981, and September 16, 1981.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court rejected Mangca’s contention that the March 31, 1981 resolution was void for not expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it was based, as required by the Constitution for courts of record. The legal logic is that the COMELEC, when acting on pre-proclamation controversies, is not a “court of justice” to which the constitutional requirement strictly applies. The resolution sufficiently stated its factual basis—the proclamation of Balindong on March 18, 1980—and its legal basis—the settled doctrine that a pre-proclamation case is no longer viable after a proclamation has been made.
Furthermore, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in not resolving Mangca’s claim of failure of election in the pre-proclamation case. The alleged report from the Regional Election Director was not formally presented in evidence. More critically, the issue of failure of election, which goes into the validity of the electoral exercise itself, is not a proper subject for a pre-proclamation controversy once a proclamation has occurred. The appropriate remedy for such a substantive challenge is a regular election protest or a quo warranto proceeding, which the COMELEC correctly advised Mangca to pursue. The COMELEC’s dismissal of PP Case No. 426 without prejudice was therefore legally sound and in accordance with established jurisprudence.