Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 172278 March 29, 2007
LYDIA R. PAGADUAN, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ARTURO Y. CUSTODIO and TEODORICO B. CORNES, JR., Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
This resolves the Petition for Certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolution1 of public respondent Commission on Elections First Division (COMELEC First Division) dated December 12, 2005 and the Resolution2 of the Commission on Elections En Banc (COMELEC En Banc) dated April 3, 2006.
The antecedent facts, as accurately summarized in the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated April 3, 2006, are as follows:
x x x x
Protestant [petitioner] and protestee [respondent Custodio] were candidates for Municipal Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Zaragoza proclaimed Arturo Custodio as winner having obtained a total number of six thousand five hundred ninety five (6,595) votes as against the six thousand one hundred forty (6,140) votes of Lydia Pagaduan or with a margin of four hundred fifty five (455) votes.
On 21 May 2004, Pagaduan filed an election protest case before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 24, docketed as Election Case No. 02-04. In her petition, Pagaduan contests the results of elections in the following twenty-three (23) precincts: x x x alleging fraud, irregularities and misappreciation in the counting of votes by the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI's).
Protestee, in his Answer, denied the above allegations of the protestant and move for the dismissal of the protest case. Pending decision by the court a quo, protestee died. Protestee's counsel move for the dismissal of the protest case claiming that the death of the protestee renders this case moot and academic. This motion was denied by the court a quo ruling that Teodorico B. Cornes (Cornes for brevity), the vice-mayor elect, may intervene.
On 2 December 2004, Cornes filed his Answer in Intervention. The court ordered the Revision of the ballots.
On 4 April 2005, the court a quo, rendered a decision declaring and proclaiming protestant Lydia R. Pagaduan as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija having obtained a total of six thousand one hundred forty (6,140) votes as against the six thousand seventy five (6,075) votes of protestee.
Unsatisfied, Cornes appealed to this Commission. In its Resolution promulgated on 12 December 2005, the First Division reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of protestee having obtained a total number six thousand four hundred seventy three (6,473) votes as against the six thousand one hundred thirty two (6,132) votes of protestant. Vice-Mayor Cornes, Jr., was therefore installed as mayor pursuant to Section 44 of the Local Government Code.3
x x x x
Petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the aforementioned Resolution of the COMELEC First Division and the case was referred to the COMELEC En Banc. The latter body then promulgated a Resolution on April 3, 2006, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of said Resolution states thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Lydia S. Pagaduan is hereby DENIED. The Resolution of the Commission (First Division) declaring Arturo Y. Custodio as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija during the 10 May 2004 Elections is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION: protestee Arturo Y. Custodio has a total number of six thousand five hundred thirty-three 6,533 votes while of Lydia S. Pagaduan has a total of six thousand one hundred forty-three (6,143) votes. Custodio has a marginal lead of 391 votes.
In view of the death of Arturo Y. Custodio, intervenor-appellant Vice-Mayor elect Teodorico B. Cornes, Jr. is hereby declared as Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija pursuant to Section 44 of the Local Government Code.
SO ORDERED.4
Aggrieved by the foregoing Resolutions of the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner comes before this Court via a Petition for Certiorari, alleging that:
1. The COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its questioned Decision, reversing the 04 April 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Election Protest Case No. 02-04 and thereby validating several ballots in favor of the deceased protestee Arturo Custodio, said questioned Decision not being supported by evidence on record and is not in accordance with law.
2. The COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its questioned Decision declaring the deceased protestee Arturo Custodio as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija, such declaration not being supported by the evidence on record.
3. The COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its questioned Resolution denying herein petitioner Lydia R. Pagaduan's Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 December 2005 and affirming with modification the said questioned Decision of the Honorable Commission's First Division, such Resolution being clearly without basis in fact and in law.5
Mainly, petitioner questions the COMELEC's (both the First Division's and the En Banc's) appreciation of the impugned ballots, contending that the COMELEC failed to take into consideration the observation of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that the padlocks and/ or seals of some ballot boxes were missing, broken or destroyed. Petitioner's main argument is that due to the missing or destroyed padlocks and/or seals of some ballot boxes, the presence of erasures, superimpositions, crossed-out words, alteration of letters in the names of candidates, symbols such as "----, /, or xxx", different handwritings on one ballot or the same handwriting for several ballots, and lack of signature of the Board of Election Inspectors Chairman on some ballots, should have been interpreted by the COMELEC as markings which would invalidate said ballots.
The COMELEC En Banc held that pursuant to Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, which mandates liberality in the appreciation of ballots, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the validity of the ballot. Hence, after re-examining the ballots, the COMELEC ruled that the appearance of some erasures, superimpositions, alteration of letters, are attempts by the voters to correct or rectify what they had originally written, while the appearance of crosses or lines put on the spaces for which the voter had not voted are signs to indicate the voter's desistance from voting. The COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc then found Arturo Y. Custodio to be the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija.
Petitioner insists that it was the RTC which ruled correctly on the validity of the ballots, thereby proclaiming her to be the duly elected mayor.
The other issue presented by petitioner is whether or not it was proper for the COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc to declare Vice-Mayor elect Teodorico B. Cornes, Jr. as Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija, pursuant to Section 44 of the Local Government Code.
Petitioner's asseverations are unmeritorious.
The settled principle is that "unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision will not be interfered with by this Court."6 Grave abuse of discretion is described in this wise:
There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.7 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, petitioner miserably failed to present satisfactory proof that the COMELEC First Division or the COMELEC En Banc acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner which would warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
First of all, it is inaccurate to say that the COMELEC did not take into consideration the finding of the trial court that some of the ballot boxes had missing padlocks and/or broken or destroyed seals. It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed,8 and that all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it.9 In this case, there is no sufficient evidence to overturn said presumptions. A perusal of the COMELEC First Division's Resolution dated December 12, 2005 instead reveals that said body duly noted the findings of the trial court regarding such irregularities.10 Evidently, the COMELEC First Division considered such circumstances and then proceeded to re-examine each contested ballot. In fact, the COMELEC First Division even upheld some rulings of the RTC on the validity of ballots found in boxes without padlocks or seals; but, there were also some RTC rulings that were reversed. It is the COMELEC's reversal of these RTC rulings that is being assailed by petitioner.
It should be stressed that the COMELEC is the constitutional body which has special knowledge and expertise over election matters. Thus, it is in a better position to rule on questions of fact such as the appreciation of contested ballots, and its findings on such matters are generally accorded great respect, if not finality by the courts. Such findings will only be set aside by the Court upon proof that the COMELEC grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion.11 Herein petitioner absolutely failed to discharge the required burden of proof.
Moreover, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the issue of whether or not the COMELEC made the proper or correct rulings cannot be the subject of an action for certiorari. In People v. Court of Appeals,12 the Court expounded on the function of the remedy of certiorari as follows:
As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison d’etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision – not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision – the same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x 13 (Emphasis supplied)
The COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En Banc likewise cannot be said to have committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the Vice-Mayor elect, Teodorico B. Cornes, Jr., succeeded to the office of the Municipal Mayor upon the death of the duly elected mayor. The COMELEC was merely applying the provisions of Section 44 of the Local Government Code, to wit:
SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. –
a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice-governor, mayor, or vice-mayor, the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall become the governor, vice-governor, mayor or vice-mayor, as the case may be. Subsequent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ranking as defined herein. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x x
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Asscociate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Asscociate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Asscociate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Asscociate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Asscociate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Asscociate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Foonotes
1 Penned by Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra, with Commissioners Rufino S.B. Javier and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring; rollo, pp. 58-83.
2 Penned by Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., with Commissioners Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., Resurreccion Z. Borra, and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring; id. at 84-121.
3 Id. at 85-86.
4 Id. at 120.
5 Id. at 14.
6 Sarangani v. Commission on Elections, 461 Phil. 300, 311 (2003).
7 People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 156394, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 205, 218.
8 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3, par. (m).
9 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3, par. (o).
10 Resolution of COMELEC First Division, rollo, pp. 67-69, 71-72, 75-76.
11 De Guzman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 159713, March 31, 2004, 426 SCRA 698, 707-708.
12 G.R. No. 142051, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 605.
13 Id. at 613.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
