G.R. No. L-63130 June 28, 1983
GUILLERMO ROBES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REYNALDO VILLANO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In the January 30, 1980 local elections in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, petitioners Guillermo Robes and others were elected and proclaimed by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on February 1, 1980. On February 23, 1980, twenty-two days after the proclamation, private respondents filed a petition with the COMELEC (Pre-Proclamation Case No. 499) seeking the nullification of the election and canvass, and/or the suspension of the proclamation. They alleged terrorism, massive fraud, vote-buying, and the registration of flying voters. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing that the COMELEC had lost jurisdiction due to the late filing and that the allegations were proper grounds for an election protest.
The COMELEC’s Second Division initially dismissed the petition on May 7, 1981, ruling it was an improper pre-proclamation suit and should have been an election protest. However, upon appeal, the COMELEC en banc reversed this dismissal via its Resolution No. 83-901 dated January 11, 1983, ordering the continuation of hearings. Petitioners then filed this certiorari and prohibition action to set aside the en banc resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the proper remedy for the private respondents, after the proclamation of the petitioners, is an election protest and not a pre-proclamation suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside COMELEC Resolution No. 83-901, and ordered the dismissal of Pre-Proclamation Case No. 499. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between pre-proclamation controversies and election protests, and the statutory periods governing each. Under Section 190 of the 1978 Election Code, an election contest for a municipal office must be filed with the proper Court of First Instance within ten days after proclamation. By filing their petition with the COMELEC twenty-two days after proclamation, private respondents had effectively abandoned the remedy of an election protest. The Court clarified that the allegations of terrorism and fraud, while serious, pertained to the conduct of the election itself and not to the canvassing of returns or the composition of the board of canvassers, which are the proper subjects of a pre-proclamation case. The ruling in Olfato vs. COMELEC, which allowed pre-proclamation scrutiny for certain irregularities, was distinguished as it involved a petition filed before proclamation. Here, the petition was filed post-proclamation, transforming the dispute into a post-proclamation matter exclusively cognizable by the regular courts via an election protest. The COMELEC en banc therefore acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the suit and ordering further hearings.