Dagloc vs. Commission on Elections

The filing of a petition for declaration of failure of election does not suspend the running of the 10-day reglementary period for filing an election protest under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, which applies only to petitions to annul or suspend proclamation based on pre-proclamation grounds, including disqualification and cancellation of certificate of candidacy cases in the nature of pre-proclamation controversies.

Salambai Ambolodto and Sukarno Samad were rival candidates for mayor of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao in the May 11, 1998 local elections, while Salipongan Dagloc was the vice-mayoral candidate who later succeeded Samad as mayor. The Omnibus Election Code requires election protests to be filed within 10 days from proclamation, but Section 248 suspends that period upon filing with the Commission on Elections of a petition to annul or to suspend proclamation. The Code separately provides for declarations of failure of election under Section 6 and for pre-proclamation controversies under Sections 242 et seq.

Salambai Ambolodto and Sukarno Samad were mayoralty candidates in the May 11, 1998 local elections in Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Samad was declared winner, and he and vice-mayor-elect Salipongan Dagloc were proclaimed on May 14, 1998.

On May 23, 1998, Ambolodto filed in the Commission on Elections a petition denominated as petition to declare a failure of election and/or annul the election results in Kabuntalan, docketed as SPA No. 98-356. The petition alleged that no valid elections were held because official ballots were prepared by only a few individuals, signatures and thumbmarks in the voting records did not belong to registered voters, voting records were blank or mismatched, and widespread violence and intimidation forced her watchers to leave the polling places. Thereafter, on June 19, 1998, she filed ex abundanti cautela an election protest in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, docketed as Election Protest No. 38-98. On July 6, 1998, she moved to withdraw SPA No. 98-356 in order to prosecute the RTC protest, which withdrawal the Commission granted in its order dated February 4, 1999.

Meanwhile, Samad filed his answer in the RTC protest seeking dismissal on the ground that the protest was filed more than 10 days from the May 14, 1998 proclamation, reiterated the motion and asked that it be resolved before Ambolodto's motion for technical examination of C.E. Forms 1 and 2. In its order dated August 18, 1998, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Samad then filed a petition for certiorari in the Commission, docketed as SPR No. 37-98, assailing the denial. While that case was pending, Samad died and petitioner Dagloc, who had succeeded him as mayor of Kabuntalan, was substituted in the Commission and RTC cases. On June 29, 1999, the Commission en banc dismissed SPR No. 37-98, treating SPA No. 98-356 as a petition for annulment of proclamation that suspended the protest period. The trial court's factual premise for further proceedings was thus that the June 19, 1998 protest remained viable pending resolution of the Commission cases.

• Scope of Section 248: Petitioner argued that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the failure-of-election petition suspended the reglementary period for filing an election protest, maintaining that what Section 248 contemplates is the filing of a pre-proclamation controversy praying for annulment or suspension of proclamation.
• Authority of Signing Commissioner: Petitioner questioned the authority of Commissioner Abdul Gani M. Marohombsar who signed the June 29, 1999 resolution, alleging his term had already expired on June 4, 1999.

• Scope of Section 248: Respondent countered that Section 248 is not limited to pre-proclamation controversies but includes a petition for declaration of failure of election, arguing that for so long as there is a prayer for annulment of proclamation in a petition within the Commission's jurisdiction, the filing suspends the 10-day period, and that even a disqualification petition praying for annulment on ineligibility grounds would do so.
• Prohibited Pleading: Respondent argued that SPR No. 37-98 should have been dismissed because it was based on the denial of a motion to dismiss in the RTC protest, which motion is a prohibited pleading under Rule 13, Section 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

• Nature of Section 248 Suspension: Whether Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code applies only to the filing of a pre-proclamation controversy.
• Timeliness of Election Protest: Whether the election protest filed on June 19, 1998 was timely filed in light of the prior filing of SPA No. 98-356 for failure of election.
• Validity of Resolution Despite Expired Term: Whether the Commission en banc resolution was invalid because Commissioner Marohombsar signed it after expiration of his term.
• Prohibited Pleading: Whether SPR No. 37-98 should have been dismissed because it stemmed from a motion to dismiss allegedly prohibited under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

• Nature of Section 248 Suspension: Yes. Suspension under Section 248 is limited to petitions to annul or suspend proclamation based on pre-proclamation grounds, including disqualification and certificate-of-candidacy cases in the nature of pre-proclamation controversies.
• Timeliness of Election Protest: No. The June 19, 1998 protest was filed out of time, the 10-day period having expired on May 24, 1998 without suspension by the failure-of-election petition.
• Validity of Resolution Despite Expired Term: No. The resolution remained valid, the 6-1 vote still constituting a majority even disregarding the commissioner's vote.
• Prohibited Pleading: No. The prohibition on motions to dismiss under Rule 13, Section 1 applies only to actions before the Commission, not to RTC election protests.

• Nature of Section 248 Suspension: Section 248 suspends the protest or quo warranto period upon filing a petition to annul or suspend proclamation, which covers pre-proclamation controversies under Section 242 and likewise disqualification cases under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 and denial or cancellation of certificate of candidacy under Section 7 thereof, as actions in the nature of pre-proclamation controversies. Suspension is logical because success in the pre-proclamation controversy would obviate a regular protest, and the policy is to prevent losing candidates from grabbing proclamation and delaying resolution while avoiding prolonged periods with no proclaimed winners. Not every prayer for annulment suffices; the distinction turns on grounds, not relief, so electoral-protest grounds may not be used to delay proclamation.
• Timeliness of Election Protest: SPA No. 98-356 was admittedly filed under Section 6 for declaration of failure of election, alleging substitute voting, blank voting records, fraud, terrorism and violence, and seeking technical examination — not pre-proclamation issues, disqualification, or cancellation of certificate of candidacy. A failure-of-election action is not a pre-proclamation controversy because the Commission in the former must investigate fraud, terrorism and analogous causes, including technical examination and comparison of signatures, while in the latter it is restricted to examination of returns on their face. Accordingly, its filing did not suspend the period, which expired 10 days after the May 14, 1998 proclamation, rendering the June 19, 1998 protest late.
• Validity of Resolution Despite Expired Term: The commissioner's term expired on June 3, 1999 while the resolution was promulgated June 29, 1999, but the voting was 6-1. Even without his vote a majority remained, so invalidity on that ground was rejected.
• Prohibited Pleading: Rule 13, Section 1, under Part III on initiation of actions before the Commission, prohibits motions to dismiss, bills of particulars, and other listed pleadings only in Commission proceedings, as confirmed by Rule 1, Section 2 limiting those rules to actions brought before the Commission. The motion to dismiss was filed in the RTC protest, cognizable by courts of general jurisdiction, and therefore was not covered.

• Suspension by petition to annul or suspend proclamation — The filing with the Commission of a petition to annul or to suspend proclamation suspends the running of the period to file an election protest or quo warranto. Applied to hold that only pre-proclamation controversies and actions of like nature, namely disqualification cases where proclamation may be suspended on strong evidence of guilt and petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, trigger suspension, to avoid defeating the policy against grabbing proclamation and prolonging protest.
• Failure of election distinguished from pre-proclamation controversy — A pre-proclamation controversy is confined to examination of election returns on their face, while an action for annulment of results or declaration of failure of election obliges the Commission to investigate fraud, terrorism, violence and analogous causes, including technical examination of election documents and voters' signatures. Applied to classify SPA No. 98-356 as a failure-of-election case that could not suspend the protest period.
• Grounds-based test for suspension, not relief-based — It is not the prayer for annulment of proclamation but the grounds invoked that determines whether Section 248 applies. Applied to reject the contention that any petition containing a prayer for annulment automatically suspends the protest period.
• Majority vote sustains collegial resolution — A Commission en banc resolution supported by a majority excluding a allegedly disqualified member's vote remains valid. Applied to uphold the June 29, 1999 resolution decided 6-1 despite the challenge to one commissioner's participation.
• Scope of COMELEC prohibited pleadings — The prohibition on motions to dismiss and other pleadings in Rule 13, Section 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure governs only actions or proceedings before the Commission. Applied to permit the motion to dismiss filed in the RTC election protest.

• "The filing with the Commission [on Elections] of a petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation of any candidate shall suspend the running of the period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings." — States the text of Section 248, the controlling provision on suspension of the protest period.
• "Needless to say, a pre-proclamation controversy is not the same as an action for annulment of election results or declaration of failure of elections." — Articulates the canonical distinction, adopted from Loong vs. COMELEC, that failure-of-election cases require investigation beyond the face of the returns.
• "In view of the foregoing, we hold that the filing by private respondent of a petition for declaration of failure of election (SPA No. 98-356) did not suspend the running of the reglementary period within which to file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings." — States the ratio decidendi that the June 19, 1998 protest was filed out of time.

• Esquivel vs. Commission on Elections, 121 SCRA 786 (1983) — Followed as authority that the 10-day protest period is suspended during pendency of a pre-proclamation controversy for annulment of proclamation, since success therein would remove need for a regular protest.
• Benjamin S. Abalos vs. Ernesto S. Domingo, G.R. No. 52665, Resolution of February 29, 1980 — Cited as the origin of the rule suspending the protest period during a pre-proclamation controversy, later reiterated in subsequent cases.
• Noli M. Valenzuela vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 53532 — Cited for granting the loser in a pre-proclamation controversy ten days from dismissal to file quo warranto or election protest.
• Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733 (1997) — Followed for holding that an action for declaration of failure of election is not in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy.
• Loong vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1, 23-24 (1996) — Followed for the distinction that pre-proclamation cases are limited to the face of returns while annulment or failure-of-election cases require investigation of fraud and technical examination.
• Dimaporo vs. Commission on Elections, 186 SCRA 769, 786-787 (1990) — Followed on the policy balancing prompt proclamation against grab-the-proclamation-and-prolong-the-protest tactics, limiting proper pre-proclamation grounds.

• Section 248, Omnibus Election Code — Provides suspension of the protest or quo warranto period upon filing a petition to annul or suspend proclamation; applied to exclude failure-of-election petitions from its coverage.
• Section 242, Omnibus Election Code — Grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies to suspend or annul proclamation; applied to define the class of petitions covered by Section 248.
• Section 6, R.A. No. 6646 — Allows suspension of proclamation during a disqualification case on strong evidence of guilt; applied as an additional instance in the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy that suspends the protest period.
• Section 7, R.A. No. 6646 in relation to Section 78, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 — Governs petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy; applied as likewise suspending proclamation and the protest period.
• Rule 13, Section 1 and Rule 1, Section 2, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Prohibit motions to dismiss and other pleadings in actions before the Commission; applied to hold the prohibition inapplicable to the RTC election protest.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.