G.R. Nos. L-68351-52 July 9, 1985
CARLOS M. PADILLA, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, LEONARDO B. PEREZ, AND THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF NUEVA VIZCAYA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlos M. Padilla and private respondent Leonardo B. Perez were candidates for Assemblyman of Nueva Vizcaya in the May 14, 1984 elections. The canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers was initially suspended due to a petition contesting the board’s composition. Following the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) reconstitution of the board and a directive to proceed, the canvass was completed on June 1, 1984. During the canvass, both parties raised written objections to the inclusion or exclusion of specific election returns. The board ruled on these objections, completed the tally showing Perez with 56,182 votes against Padilla’s 53,063, and proclaimed Perez the winner on June 2, 1984.
Both parties appealed the board’s rulings on their objections to the COMELEC. Padilla contested the exclusion of 16 returns from six municipalities and the inclusion of 76 returns from five municipalities. The COMELEC (Second Division), in its decision dated August 7, 1984, sustained the board’s rulings and affirmed Perez’s proclamation. Padilla then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the COMELEC decision and to order a recanvass.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the COMELEC regarding the inclusion and exclusion of election returns in an election contest through a petition for certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that its certiorari jurisdiction over COMELEC decisions, as provided under Section 11, Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution, is not a broad appellate review power. Citing Aratuc v. Commission on Elections, the Court explained that such review is confined to instances of “grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process.” The Court cannot review the COMELEC’s factual findings or reevaluate the evidence it considered in determining the validity of the contested election returns.
The Court distinguished this case from Pimentel v. Commission on Elections, where it intervened due to extreme circumstances involving the disenfranchisement of about 25% of an electorate and a resulting temporary deprivation of representation. Here, the exclusion of 16 returns affected only about 3% of the voters, and Nueva Vizcaya had continuous representation from the proclaimed winner. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s affirmance of the board’s rulings. The board had acted within its authority under the canvassing rules, and the COMELEC’s decision was based on its evaluation of the evidence. Therefore, the petition, being essentially a request for the Supreme Court to re-examine factual matters, was not a proper subject for certiorari.