Casimiro vs. Commission on Elections

A pre-proclamation controversy ceases to be viable once the winning candidates have been proclaimed and have assumed office; the proper remedy is an electoral protest, and the COMELEC’s factual findings upholding the regularity of election returns and canvassing proceedings will be sustained absent grave abuse of discretion.

Gabriel P. Casimiro was the UNIDO candidate for Mayor of Las Pinas, Metro Manila, in the 18 January 1988 local elections, while Rosalino Riguera, Alfredo Juntilla, Remigio Ramos, Eduardo Castillo, and Reynaldo Salvador were among the other candidates for local positions in the same municipality. The Omnibus Election Code governs pre-proclamation controversies, requiring that contested rulings of a board of canvassers be appealed within five days and that pre-proclamation cases be summarily decided.

Gabriel P. Casimiro, the UNIDO candidate for Mayor of Las Pinas, Metro Manila, and the UNIDO Party filed pre-proclamation cases before the COMELEC during the canvassing of votes for the 18 January 1988 local elections. Rosalino Riguera was also a mayoral candidate and was ultimately proclaimed Mayor; Remigio Ramos and Eduardo Castillo were candidates for Vice-Mayor, and Reynaldo Salvador for Councilor. The cases were SPC No. 88-210 (Juntilla, et al. vs. Riguera, et al.), SPC No. 88-218 (Casimiro’s petition to suspend the canvass, transfer the venue to the COMELEC Main Office in Intramuros, Manila, and/or suspend proclamation or declare any proclamation null), SPC No. 88-360 (UNIDO Party’s petition to enjoin the Board of Canvassers from canvassing votes and/or tabulating unofficial election returns), and SPC No. 88-619 (Salvador vs. Las Pinas Board of Canvassers, et al.).

Petitioners claimed that the canvass proceedings at the COMELEC Central Office were illegal because they had no prior notice of the date and time of canvassing, which was why they left the proceedings. According to them, their counsel was at the COMELEC Main Office only to accompany the transfer of the election returns and ballot boxes, and they had asked for postponement to the following day because they had no watchers, tabulators, and election paraphernalia, but the postponement was denied. The Municipal Board of Canvassers’ letter dated February 2, 1988, however, stated that, per COMELEC order dated January 29, 1988, the venue of the canvass of election returns in Las Pinas would be transferred to the COMELEC Central Office at Intramuros, Manila, that afternoon at 1:00 P.M. of February 2, 1988, and that a representative was needed to accompany the transfer of the remaining election returns. The letter expressly referred to the transfer of the venue of the canvass.

The COMELEC Second Division issued a consolidated Decision on March 25, 1988. With the lifting of the order restraining proclamation, Rosalino Riguera and the other winning candidates for local officials were proclaimed. On June 8, 1988, the COMELEC en banc denied Casimiro and UNIDO’s motion for reconsideration and affirmed the proclamation; on July 13, 1988, it denied Casimiro’s Motion for Clarification and/or Partial Reconsideration as a pro-forma motion. The COMELEC required the parties to submit memoranda in support of their positions, and it found that petitioners did not appeal the contested ruling within the reglementary period. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was dated March 29, 1988, while the proclamation was made right after the promulgation of the Second Division Decision on March 25, 1988.

Petitioners relied on the affidavits of Atty. Florencio Dalupang, their head watcher/representative, and Atty. Paterno Lubaton, one of their lawyers, to support their charges that many election returns were canvassed more than once, that ghost precincts were credited with election returns, and that election returns were tampered with, padded, and spurious. They claimed the affidavits detailed a clear pattern of anomalous acts, identified individual precincts, and met the standard of substantial evidence, and they complained that the COMELEC Second Division conducted no hearing where the affiants could be presented as witnesses. Petitioners also claimed they interposed written objections to the Canvassing Board, but also alleged they could not have intelligently and effectively registered their objections because the defects, anomalies, and irregularities were not apparent or noticeable on the face of the election returns. The COMELEC found that the evidence consisted mainly of affidavits prepared by petitioners’ own representatives, whose self-serving nature could not be discounted, and that the records showed no other substantial evidence to justify excluding the election returns or nullifying the canvassing proceedings; it characterized the charges as unsubstantiated or mere generalities.

On August 19, 1988, Casimiro and the UNIDO Party filed G.R. Nos. 84462-63, seeking to annul portions of the March 25, 1988 COMELEC Second Division Decision, the June 8, 1988 en banc Resolution, and the July 13, 1988 Resolution, and praying for a new Board of Canvassers to recanvass the deferred 340 election returns, annulment of Riguera’s proclamation, and a declaration that Casimiro had won and should be proclaimed. On September 1, 1988, Rustico Antonio and nine other defeated UNIDO candidates for Councilors filed G.R. Nos. 84678-79, seeking nullification of the same COMELEC Decision and Resolutions. In the meantime, Reynaldo Salvador filed Election Case No. 88505 before the RTC of Makati, Branch 137; Judge Santiago Ranada, Jr. scheduled the verification of tally sheets and the opening of seven ballot boxes, and the ballot boxes were transferred from the COMELEC Main Office to the RTC, Makati. On September 20, 1988, the SC ordered that status quo be maintained by not opening the ballot boxes scheduled on September 22, 1988 before Judge Ranada until further orders after receipt of the Solicitor General’s comment. On December 13, 1988, upon motion by Rustico Antonio, et al., the SC consolidated G.R. Nos. 84462-63 and 84678-79 because the issues raised were similar and/or identical.

• Due Process and Notice: Petitioners argued that the canvass at the COMELEC Main Office was illegal because they had no prior notice of the date and time of canvassing; their counsel was present only to accompany the transfer of election returns and ballot boxes, they asked for postponement to the next day because they had no watchers, tabulators, and election paraphernalia, and the denial of postponement deprived them of due process.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Fraud and Irregularities: Petitioners argued that the COMELEC erred in ruling that their evidence of tampered, padded, spurious, and fraudulent election returns was not clear, sufficient, and convincing; they relied on the affidavits of Atty. Dalupang and Atty. Lubaton, which they claimed detailed a clear pattern of anomalous acts, identified individual precincts, and met the standard of substantial evidence, and they argued that the COMELEC erred in treating Atty. Lubaton’s affidavit allegations as generalities and in holding that the Board’s denial of their objections could no longer be raised before the COMELEC.
• Denial of Hearing: Petitioners argued that the COMELEC Second Division conducted no hearing where they could have presented the affiants as witnesses.
• Objections to Election Returns: Petitioners argued that they interposed written objections to the Canvassing Board and that their alleged failure to object to specific election returns at the board level was not fatal because Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code allowed them to bring the case directly to the COMELEC; they also claimed they could not intelligently and effectively register their objections because the defects were not apparent on the face of the returns.
• Proclamation During Pendency of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners argued that the proclamation of Rosalino Riguera despite the pendency of their motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC was hasty, contrary to election law and rules, and therefore a nullity.

• Due Process and Notice: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the canvassing conducted by the Las Pinas Board of Canvassers at the COMELEC Main Office despite petitioners’ claim of lack of prior notice and denial of postponement.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Fraud and Irregularities: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioners’ evidence of tampered, padded, spurious, or fraudulent election returns was not clear, sufficient, and convincing.
• Denial of Hearing: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the pre-proclamation cases without conducting a hearing where petitioners could present their affiants as witnesses.
• Objections to Election Returns: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners failed to object to specific election returns at the canvassing board level and that such failure was fatal to their case.
• Proclamation During Pendency of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the proclamation of Rosalino Riguera while petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was pending was hasty, contrary to election law and rules, and therefore a nullity.
• Viability of Pre-Proclamation Controversy: Whether the pre-proclamation controversy remained viable after Riguera and the other winning candidates had been proclaimed and had assumed office.

• Due Process and Notice: No. The transfer of the canvass to the COMELEC Main Office was at petitioners’ instance, and the Board’s letter expressly referred to the transfer of the venue; any absence was by petitioners’ choice. Their objections to the Board’s ruling should have been appealed within five days under Section 244 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Fraud and Irregularities: No. The evidence consisted mainly of self-serving affidavits of petitioners’ own representatives; absent substantial evidence, the presumption of regular performance of official duty and the election returns must be upheld.
• Denial of Hearing: No. Section 246 of the Omnibus Election Code requires notice and hearing, and petitioners were notified and given opportunity to submit evidence and memoranda; summary proceedings are consistent with election law.
• Objections to Election Returns: No. Even assuming failure to object to specific returns was not fatal under Section 241, the COMELEC passed upon the charges and found them unsubstantiated or mere generalities; petitioners’ inconsistent assertions weakened their claim.
• Proclamation During Pendency of Motion for Reconsideration: No. The Board had a ministerial duty to proclaim after the canvass, and the proclamation was made pursuant to the COMELEC Second Division’s March 25, 1988 Decision; the motion for reconsideration was dated March 29, 1988, after the proclamation.
• Viability of Pre-Proclamation Controversy: No. Once the winning candidates were proclaimed and assumed office, the pre-proclamation controversy was no longer viable; the proper remedy was an electoral protest.

• Due Process and Notice: The transfer of the canvassing from Las Pinas to the COMELEC Main Office in Manila was at petitioners’ instance. The Municipal Board of Canvassers’ letter dated February 2, 1988 expressly stated that, per COMELEC order dated January 29, 1988, the venue of the canvass would be transferred to the COMELEC Central Office at Intramuros, Manila, that afternoon at 1:00 P.M. of February 2, 1988, and that a representative was needed to accompany the transfer of the remaining election returns. Because the letter clearly referred to the transfer of the venue of the canvass, petitioners could not justifiably claim lack of notice; if their representatives were absent during the canvassing, it was because they opted to leave the proceedings. When petitioners objected to the canvassing at the COMELEC Main Office for alleged lack of prior notice, they contested the Board’s proceedings; the Board, by continuing with the canvass, in effect overruled the objections. Under Section 244 of the Omnibus Election Code, petitioners should have appealed the contested ruling or proceeding within five days, but no timely appeal was made. No grave abuse of discretion was attributable to the COMELEC in upholding the validity of the canvassing at its Main Office.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Fraud and Irregularities: Petitioners relied mainly on affidavits prepared by their own representatives, Atty. Dalupang and Atty. Lubaton. The SC held that the self-serving nature of said affidavits could not be discounted and that reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits, citing Pimentel, Jr. vs. COMELEC. Aside from the sworn statements, the records did not indicate any other substantial evidence that would justify excluding election returns as fraudulent or declaring the canvassing proceedings null and void. The evidence was insufficient to overturn the presumption that official duty had been regularly performed under Section 5[m], Rule 131. The SC also held that a conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof, citing Estrada vs. COMELEC. The issue whether the election returns were fraudulent, tampered with, or spurious necessitated factual determinations within the exclusive function of the COMELEC.
• Denial of Hearing: Section 246 of the Omnibus Election Code requires that the parties be notified and heard. Petitioners were notified and given an opportunity to submit evidence in support of their allegations; they were required to submit a Memorandum in amplification of their position. The SC held that such procedure was fair, valid, and acceptable and consistent with the summary character of proceedings in election cases. As held in Alonto vs. COMELEC, the policy of election laws is that pre-proclamation cases should be summarily decided, consistent with the law’s desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. The COMELEC was therefore not faulted for merely requiring the parties to submit memoranda instead of conducting an oral hearing where the affiants could be presented.
• Objections to Election Returns: Petitioners claimed that they had interposed written objections to the Canvassing Board, but also alleged that they could not have intelligently and effectively registered their objections because the defects, anomalies, and irregularities were not apparent or noticeable on the face of the election returns. The SC held that these inconsistent assertions cast doubt on the credibility of petitioners’ allegations. Even assuming that the alleged failure of petitioners to object to specific election returns at the canvassing board level was not fatal because Section 241 of the Omnibus Election Code allowed them to bring their case directly to the COMELEC, the fact remained that the COMELEC passed upon petitioners’ allegations and charges concerning the election returns and the canvassing proceedings. The verdict of the poll body was that the charges were either unsubstantiated or mere generalities, taking note of the self-serving nature of the affidavits petitioners presented as evidence.
• Proclamation During Pendency of Motion for Reconsideration: The Board of Canvassers had the legal obligation, after canvass of the returns, to proclaim the elected candidates, as held in Abes vs. COMELEC. The duty of the Board to proclaim is ministerial after the mechanical or mathematical act of counting the votes cast has been accomplished. The Board proclaimed the winners pursuant to the COMELEC Decision dated March 25, 1988 ordering it to reconvene, complete the canvass if not yet completed, and proclaim the winning candidates. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners was dated March 29, 1988, while the proclamation was made right after the promulgation of the COMELEC Second Division’s Decision on March 25, 1988. Hence, petitioners’ allegation that the proclamation was improper because it was made during the pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration suffered from inaccuracy.
• Viability of Pre-Proclamation Controversy: Private respondent Rosalino Riguera and the other winning candidates had already been proclaimed and had assumed office. The petitions below had ceased to be pre-proclamation controversies. As held in Padilla vs. COMELEC and in a number of cases, a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable at this point of time and should be dismissed, the proper remedy being an electoral protest before the proper forum. Instead of the submission of mere affidavits, the parties would be able to present witnesses subject to the right of confrontation, and recourse to such a remedy would settle the matters in controversy conclusively and once and for all.

• Pre-proclamation controversy after proclamation — A pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable once the winning candidates have been proclaimed and have assumed office; the proper remedy is an electoral protest before the proper forum. Applied: Riguera and the other winners were proclaimed and assumed office, so the petitions were dismissed and the status quo order was lifted.
• Summary pre-proclamation proceedings and due process — Election law requires pre-proclamation cases to be summarily decided; due process is satisfied by notice and an opportunity to submit evidence and memoranda, without necessarily holding an oral hearing. Applied: the COMELEC required memoranda, and the SC found no grave abuse.
• Presumption of regularity and standard to disregard election returns — Official duty is presumed regularly performed under Section 5[m], Rule 131; an election return may be disregarded as manufactured or false only upon the most convincing proof, not on mere affidavits. Applied: petitioners’ self-serving affidavits were insufficient to overcome the presumption.
• Ministerial duty to proclaim — After the mechanical or mathematical counting of votes, the board of canvassers has a ministerial duty to proclaim the elected candidates. Applied: the proclamation of Riguera after the March 25, 1988 COMELEC order was valid; the motion for reconsideration was dated March 29, 1988.
• Appeal from contested board ruling — Under Section 244 of the Omnibus Election Code, a contested ruling or proceeding of the board of canvassers must be appealed within five days. Applied: petitioners’ objection to the COMELEC Main Office canvass was not timely appealed.

• “The transfer of the canvassing from Las Pinas to the COMELEC Main Office in Manila was at petitioners' instance.” — This defeats the claim of lack of notice because petitioners themselves requested the transfer.
• “The self-serving nature of said Affidavits cannot be discounted. As this Court has pronounced, reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits (Pimentel, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 126,148).” — This is the SC’s reason for rejecting petitioners’ affidavit-based evidence of fraud and irregularities.
• “A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution, and only upon the most convincing proof (Estrada vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 1514, 1519).” — This states the high evidentiary standard for excluding election returns from the canvass.
• “a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable at this point of time and should be dismissed, the proper remedy being an electoral protest before the proper forum.” — This is the SC’s basis for dismissing the petitions after the winners had been proclaimed and had assumed office.

• Pimentel, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 140 SCRA 126, 148 — Relied on for the rule that reliance should not be placed on mere affidavits.
• Estrada vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 1514, 1519 — Relied on for the standard that an election return may be disregarded as manufactured or false only upon the most convincing proof.
• Alonto vs. COMELEC, 22 SCRA 878 — Relied on for the summary nature of pre-proclamation proceedings.
• Abes vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 1252 — Relied on for the ministerial duty of the board of canvassers to proclaim after the canvass.
• Padilla vs. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424 — Relied on for the rule that a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable after proclamation and assumption of office.

• Section 244, Omnibus Election Code — A contested ruling or proceeding of the board of canvassers must be appealed within five days; petitioners failed to timely appeal their objection to the canvass at the COMELEC Main Office.
• Section 246, Omnibus Election Code — Requires that parties be notified and heard; satisfied by notice and opportunity to submit evidence and memoranda in summary pre-proclamation proceedings.
• Section 241, Omnibus Election Code — Allows a party to bring the matter directly to the COMELEC; the SC assumed this even if failure to object to specific returns at the board level was not fatal.
• Section 5[m], Rule 131 — Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed; used to uphold the election returns and canvassing proceedings absent convincing evidence.