Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

A challenge to the proclamation of a winning candidate for the House of Representatives is a contest relating to election, returns, and qualifications that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal; and an incomplete canvass does not invalidate a proclamation where the missing returns will not affect the result.

Petitioner Emiliano R. “Boy” Caruncho III and Henry P. Lanot were rival candidates for the congressional seat in the lone district of Pasig City. The legal backdrop is the constitutional grant to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal of sole jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House Members, alongside the Omnibus Election Code’s provisions on canvassing and proclamation when election returns are missing or destroyed.

Petitioner Emiliano R. “Boy” Caruncho III was the Liberal Party candidate for the congressional seat in the lone district of Pasig City in the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections. The other candidates included Arnulfo G. Acedera, Jr. of Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, Marcelino P. Arias of the Nacionalista Party, Roberto C. Bassig (Independent), Esmeraldo T. Batacan of the PDR-LM Coalition, Henry P. Lanot of LAMMP, Francisco C. Rivera, Jr. of PRP/PDR, Elpidio G. Tuason (Independent), and Raoul V. Victorino of the Liberal Party/LAMMP.

At 9:00 o’clock in the morning of May 12, 1998, the Pasig City Board of Canvassers, composed of Atty. Casiano Atuel, Jr. as Chairman, Atty. Grace S. Belvis as Vice-Chairman, and Dr. Florentina Lizano as Member, began canvassing the election returns. The canvass proceeded smoothly until the Board received intelligence reports that Acedera and his supporters might disrupt and stop the canvassing. At exactly 6:00 o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1998, Acedera and his supporters stormed the Caruncho Stadium in San Nicolas, Pasig City, where the canvassing was being conducted; they allegedly forced themselves into the canvassing area and broke a glass door. As pandemonium broke loose, the police fired warning shots, causing the Board, canvassing units, and others present to scamper for safety. The canvassing personnel exited through the backdoors carrying the election returns they were canvassing and tallying and the Statement of Votes they were accomplishing, and entrusted these documents to the City Treasurer’s Office and the Pasig Employment Service Office (PESO). Election documents and paraphernalia were scattered all over the place when the intruders left.

The following day, May 15, 1998, the sub-canvassing units recovered twenty-two (22) election returns and the Statement of Votes from the Treasurer’s Office and the PESO. However, page 2 of each of the 22 election returns, which contained the names of candidates for congressmen, had been detached and could not be found. An investigation was conducted to pinpoint liability for the loss but yielded no result. The Board then secured proper authority from the COMELEC, through Election Director for the National Capital Region Atty. Teresita Suarez, for the reconstitution of the missing page by using the other copies of the election returns, particularly the provincial copy or the copy in the ballot boxes placed therein by the Board of Election Inspectors.

At 2:40 a.m. of May 17, 1998, the Board, satisfied that it had finished canvassing the 1,491 election returns from as many clustered precincts, proclaimed Henry P. Lanot as the winner in the congressional race for the lone district of Pasig. The votes obtained by the leading three candidates were: Henry P. Lanot – 60,914 votes; Emiliano R. “Boy” Caruncho III – 42,942 votes; and Arnulfo Acedera – 36,139 votes. Lanot led Caruncho by 17,971 votes. According to petitioner, 147 election returns involving about 30,000 votes were still not canvassed, and on May 21, 1998 he filed a “Motion to Nullify Proclamation on the Basis of Incomplete Returns” with the COMELEC, amended on June 1, 1998 to correct errors in the listing of precincts. He prayed that the COMELEC en banc declare the proclamation null and void, direct the Board to convene and reopen the ballot boxes to recount the votes for the House of Representatives, and proclaim the winner.

In its comment filed on June 23, 1998, respondent Board admitted the disruption and stoppage of the canvass but asserted that only twenty-two (22) election returns, not 147, were missing and that these were eventually recovered. It explained that page 2 of the 22 recovered election returns was detached and missing, that investigation yielded no admission from the Treasurer’s Office or PESO, and that the Board used the provincial copies and copies in the ballot boxes to reconstitute the missing page after securing COMELEC authority. The Board also stated that it had finished canvassing the 1,491 election returns and proclaimed the winning candidates, and that even if the 22 election returns involving about 4,400 votes were canvassed, Lanot’s lead would not be affected because he was leading Caruncho by 17,971 votes. The COMELEC en banc later found that the Board had done everything to account for all election returns, that there was no truth to the claim that 147 election returns were not canvassed, and that even granting that 22 election returns involving about 4,400 votes were missing, the same would not affect the result because Lanot’s lead over Caruncho was 17,971 votes.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Incomplete Canvass: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC en banc acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in overruling his claim that 147 election returns involving about 30,000 votes were not canvassed, and that this was enough reason to contest Lanot’s proclamation as based on an incomplete canvass.

• Jurisdiction: Respondent Board raised that the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over the case under Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Objections: Respondent Board raised that petitioner failed to record his objections to the election returns and certificate of canvass in the minutes of the Board’s proceedings.
• Non-joinder: Respondent Board raised that the winning candidate, Henry Lanot, was not impleaded in the motion to nullify his proclamation.

• Jurisdiction (HRET): Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition seeking to nullify the proclamation of a winning candidate for the House of Representatives, or whether such contest falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Incomplete Canvass: Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion to nullify the proclamation based on an alleged incomplete canvass of 147 election returns.
• Non-joinder and Due Process: Whether the failure to implead the proclaimed winning candidate as a private respondent in the petition for certiorari is by itself a ground for dismissal.

• Jurisdiction (HRET): No. The HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House Members, including questions on the canvass and proclamation; petitioner’s remedy was an electoral protest before the HRET.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Incomplete Canvass: No. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion; the missing returns represented only about 4,400 votes, which could not affect Lanot’s 17,971-vote lead, and the Board had authority to reconstitute the missing page and proclaim on available returns.
• Non-joinder and Due Process: No, non-joinder is not by itself a ground for dismissal. The winning candidate is a real party in interest who must be notified, but Lanot’s intervention cured the COMELEC lapse, and the SC did not require his joinder in the petition given the need for dispatch in election cases.

• Jurisdiction (HRET): The SC invoked Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Rule 14 of the 1991 Revised Rules of the HRET reiterates this grant. In Rasul vs. COMELEC and Aquino-Oreta, the SC interpreted the phrase “election, returns and qualifications” in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title; “returns” covers the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns. Because petitioner questioned Lanot’s proclamation as winner in the congressional race for the sole district of Pasig City, his remedy should have been to file an electoral protest with the HRET.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Incomplete Canvass: The SC held that the factual question of how many election returns were missing as a consequence of the disruption had been definitely resolved by the COMELEC en banc, and the SC is not a trier of facts. The facts established below showed that all legal steps necessary to reconstitute the missing page 2 of the 22 election returns were followed: proper authorization was secured from the COMELEC, and the reconstitution was based on the provincial copy retrieved from the sealed ballot boxes. Petitioner failed to have the anomaly recorded in the minutes of the Board’s proceedings as required by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166. The Board therefore observed Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of the COMELEC, to use authentic copies of missing or destroyed election returns, and permits the board to terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of available returns if the missing returns will not affect the result. Even if the 22 election returns were not considered, they represented only about 4,400 votes, which could not affect Lanot’s 17,971-vote lead. The general rule that an incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a proclamation applies only where the missing or uncounted returns will affect the result; here they did not. Thus, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
• Non-joinder and Due Process: The SC held that due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing, and the proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of the motion to set aside his proclamation. Lanot was not originally impleaded in the motion to nullify his proclamation, but his intervention in SPC 98-123, which the COMELEC Second Division allowed, cured the procedural lapse that could have affected the popular will. In the instant petition, petitioner again failed to implead Lanot. Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest, meaning one with a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. As the winning candidate whose proclamation was sought to be nullified, Lanot was a real party in interest; the COMELEC and the Board were mere nominal parties. Rule 65, Section 5 requires the petitioner to join as private respondent the person interested in sustaining the proceedings. Ordinarily, the non-joinder of an indispensable party or the real party in interest is not by itself a ground for dismissal; the court must first require joinder, and noncompliance with that order is the ground for dismissal. But because this is an election case that should be resolved with dispatch considering the public interest involved, the SC did not deem it necessary to require that Lanot be impleaded as a respondent in the case.

• HRET exclusive jurisdiction over House Members’ election contests — Under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. The phrase covers all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title; “returns” includes the canvass and proclamation, questions on the composition of the board of canvassers, and authenticity of election returns. Applied: Caruncho’s challenge to Lanot’s proclamation should have been an electoral protest before the HRET.
• Real party in interest in annulment of proclamation — A real party in interest is one with a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. The winning candidate whose proclamation is sought to be annulled is the real party in interest; the COMELEC and board of canvassers are nominal parties. Rule 65, Section 5 requires joining the private respondent interested in sustaining the proceedings. Applied: Lanot was the real party, but his nonjoinder was not by itself a ground for dismissal; the SC did not require joinder due to dispatch in election cases.
• Due process in COMELEC proceedings — Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing. A proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of the motion to set aside his proclamation. Applied: Lanot was not originally impleaded, but his intervention cured the procedural lapse before the COMELEC.
• Incomplete canvass rule — An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation because a canvass cannot reflect the true vote unless all returns are considered. The rule applies only where the missing or uncounted returns will affect the result. Under Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code, the board may terminate the canvass and proclaim on available returns if the missing returns will not affect the result. Applied: the 22 missing returns represented about 4,400 votes, while Lanot led by 17,971, so the result would not be affected.
• Reconstitution of missing election returns — Under Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code, when the board’s copy of election returns is missing, the board may obtain it from the board of election inspectors, or if lost or destroyed, upon prior authority of the COMELEC, use any authentic copies or certified copy. Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166 requires objections to election returns and certificate of canvass to be recorded in the minutes. Applied: the Board secured COMELEC authority and used provincial copies/ballot-box copies to reconstitute page 2; petitioner failed to record objections in the minutes.
• SC not a trier of facts — The SC does not resolve factual questions; the factual finding of the COMELEC en banc on how many election returns were missing is binding. Applied: the SC refused to re-examine petitioner’s claim of 147 missing returns and relied on the COMELEC’s finding of 22 returns involving about 4,400 votes.

• "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. x x x." — The constitutional basis for holding that the HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over Caruncho’s challenge to Lanot’s proclamation.
• "The proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of the motion to set aside his proclamation." — States the due process requirement applied to Lanot’s non-impleading before the COMELEC.
• "An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation." — States the general rule, which the SC qualified by holding that it applies only where the missing returns will affect the result.
• "The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the election returns have been received by it, may terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of the available election returns if the missing election returns will not affect the results of the election." — The statutory rule under Section 233 of the Omnibus Election Code that supported the proclamation despite the missing returns.

• Rasul vs. COMELEC and Aquino-Oreta, G.R. No. 134142, August 24, 1999 — Controlling precedent; the SC relied on its interpretation of Article VI, Section 17 to hold that the HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House Members.
• Javier vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 — Cited in Rasul; interpreted “election, returns and qualifications” to cover all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title, including the canvass and proclamation.
• Pangilinan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105278, November 18, 1993, 228 SCRA 36 — Cited to support the remedy of an electoral protest before the HRET.
• Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106271, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 782, 792-793 — Cited for the rule that due process in quasi-judicial proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing.
• Jagunap vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 53062 & 53345, April 24, 1981, 104 SCRA 204, 213 — Cited for the rule that a winning candidate’s proclamation cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of the motion to set it aside.
• De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 254, 265 (1997) — Cited to define real party in interest as one with present substantial interest, not a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.
• Datu Sukarno Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631, 642 (1993) — Cited for the rule that an incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation.
• Duremdes vs. COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746, 758 (1989) — Cited for the rule that a canvass cannot reflect the true vote unless all returns are considered and none is omitted.

• Article VI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Applied to hold that the HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over Caruncho’s challenge to Lanot’s proclamation.
• Rule 14, 1991 Revised Rules of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives — Reiterates the HRET’s sole jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House Members. Applied as part of the jurisdictional framework.
• Section 233, Omnibus Election Code — When election returns are delayed, lost, or destroyed, the board may obtain the missing returns from the board of election inspectors or, upon prior COMELEC authority, use authentic copies; the board may terminate the canvass and proclaim if the missing returns will not affect the results. Applied to uphold the reconstitution and proclamation.
• Section 15, Republic Act No. 7166 — Requires objections to election returns and certificate of canvass to be recorded in the minutes of the board’s proceedings. Applied: petitioner failed to record objections, so the Board’s actions stood.
• Section 2, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. Applied: Lanot was the real party in interest in the annulment of his proclamation.
• Section 5, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — In a petition against acts of a quasi-judicial agency, the petitioner shall join as private respondent the person interested in sustaining the proceedings; public respondents are nominal. Applied: Lanot should have been joined, but nonjoinder did not bar resolution due to election-case dispatch.
• Section 250, Omnibus Election Code — Cited in Rasul as reiterating that the Senate and House Electoral Tribunals are the sole judges of contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their Members. Applied as part of the jurisdictional framework.