G.R. Nos. 79646-49 November 13, 1987
Roderico Villaroya, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, Benedicta B. Roa and City Board of Canvassers of Cagayan de Oro, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roderico Villaroya and private respondent Benedicta B. Roa were candidates for Congress in Cagayan de Oro City in the May 11, 1987 elections. The City Board of Canvassers completed its tabulation on May 16, 1987, showing Villaroya leading Roa by 26 votes. Roa filed a pre-proclamation petition with the COMELEC contesting returns from several precincts. Subsequently, on May 22, 1987, she filed a protest with the Board, alleging a clerical error in the tabulation for Precinct 302-A. She claimed the election return showed she received 111 votes, but the statement of votes credited her with only 54, a discrepancy of 57 votes. The Board did not act on this protest.
Roa then filed a supplemental petition with the COMELEC seeking correction. The COMELEC Second Division, and later the Commission en banc, ordered the Board to reconvene and verify the actual votes from the election return of Precinct 302-A. After verification, which confirmed Roa received 111 votes, she was proclaimed the winner by a 31-vote margin. Villaroya filed this petition, arguing the COMELEC had no jurisdiction as Roa failed to raise the issue before the Board during canvassing.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to order the examination and correction of an election return based on a clerical error in the statement of votes, as a pre-proclamation controversy, even if the issue was not raised before the Board of Canvassers during the canvass.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the COMELEC’s broad constitutional mandate to enforce election laws. The Court ruled that the discrepancy between the election return and the statement of votes constituted a manifest error in the tabulation or tallying of results, which is a proper subject of a pre-proclamation controversy under the law. The failure of Roa to object during the canvass before the Board did not divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to correct such a patent clerical mistake. The COMELEC has the inherent power, even on appeal, to direct the Board to correct errors in the canvass to ensure the true will of the electorate is reflected.
The Court emphasized that the correction involved a simple mathematical verification from the face of the election return itself—a ministerial act—and did not require a reopening of ballot boxes or a re-examination of ballots, which would be beyond the scope of a pre-proclamation proceeding. The objective was to make the canvass conform to the authentic election returns. Since the correction altered the result, Roa’s proclamation was valid. Villaroya’s remedy, if he alleged other irregularities, was an election protest before the Electoral Tribunal.