Dela Llana vs. COMELEC

The COMELEC has the authority to treat a pleading captioned as an election protest as a petition for correction of manifest errors where the allegations thereof actually seek the rectification of apparent errors in the election returns or statement of votes, and may suspend its own rules of procedure to entertain such petition even if filed beyond the reglementary period, in the interest of ascertaining the true will of the electorate.

Petitioner Loretta P. Dela Llana and respondent Rizalino F. Pablo, Jr. were rival candidates for Provincial Board Member, First District of Zambales, in the May 14, 2001 elections. The First District, comprising the municipalities of Subic, Castillejos, and San Marcelino, was allotted three seats in the Provincial Board. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is vested by the Constitution with broad powers over the enforcement and administration of election laws and the resolution of election controversies, including the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure and to suspend those rules in the interest of justice and speedy disposition.

In the May 14, 2001 elections, petitioner Loretta P. Dela Llana and respondent Rizalino F. Pablo, Jr. were among the candidates vying for three seats in the Provincial Board, First District of Zambales, a district comprising the municipalities of Subic, Castillejos, and San Marcelino. On May 18, 2001, the Provincial Board of Canvassers proclaimed the three winning candidates: Jose de Jesus Gutierrez, Sr. (22,926 votes), Wilfredo Viloria Felarca (14,458 votes), and petitioner Dela Llana (14,117 votes). Respondent Pablo ranked fourth with 14,093 votes, falling short of petitioner's total by 24 votes.

On May 25, 2001, respondent Pablo filed an election protest docketed as EPC Case No. 2001-6 with the COMELEC Electoral Contest Adjudication Department. He alleged that when the Municipal Board of Canvassers for Castillejos canvassed the election returns, his 42 votes in Precinct No. 29-A-1 were altered and reduced to only 4 in the Statement of Votes by Precinct (Statement No. 2114713), a loss of 38 votes. When the Provincial Board of Canvassers canvassed the Certificates of Canvass from the three municipalities, his total was recorded as 14,093 instead of the correct 14,131. The missing 38 votes, if credited, would have been sufficient to have him proclaimed the third member of the Provincial Board. Petitioner, in her answer with counter-protest, denied the allegations and asserted that respondent, as an incumbent board member, had exercised influence over precincts in San Marcelino, thereby crediting himself with more votes than he actually received; she prayed that all 77 precincts in San Marcelino be placed under protest. Respondent dismissed these counter-allegations as baseless speculation.

The case was assigned to the COMELEC First Division and set for hearing on July 16, 2001. At the outset, the First Division, through Commissioner Borra, declared it was treating the case as one for correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes of Castillejos, and held petitioner's counter-protest premature pending resolution of the subject petition and a separate petition for canvass of five uncanvassed precincts in Subic (SPC No. 01-264) before the Second Division. Evidence was then presented: COMELEC Document Examiner Zosimo Remo produced the Election Return for Precinct No. 29-A-1 (Serial No. 58040069), which both parties' counsel examined and confirmed showed 41 votes for respondent; COMELEC Records Officer Vilma Villegas presented the Statement of Votes (Serial No. 2114713), which showed only 4 votes for respondent in that precinct — 37 votes less than the ER figure. The Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation was also presented, disclosing respondent's total at 14,117 votes in the First District.

On September 5, 2001, the COMELEC First Division granted respondent's petition for correction of manifest errors, directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Castillejos to reconvene and correct the Statement of Votes, annulled petitioner's proclamation as based on an erroneous canvass, and ordered petitioner to vacate her post. It denied respondent's prayer for his own proclamation as premature, given the pending canvass of five uncanvassed precincts in Subic. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, contending the First Division lacked authority to convert the election protest into a correction of manifest errors case. The First Division elevated the records to the COMELEC En Banc, which on February 19, 2002 denied the motion and affirmed the First Division's resolution, finding a manifest error in the copying of figures from the Election Return to the Statement of Votes and directing the reconvening of the relevant boards of canvassers to effect corrections and proclaim the true winning candidate. Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

• Authority to Convert: Petitioner contended that the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in treating respondent's election protest as a case for correction of manifest errors, arguing that the COMELEC lacked authority or jurisdiction to convert the nature of the petition motu proprio.
• Suspension of Rules: Petitioner maintained that the COMELEC could not justify the conversion by suspending its own Rules of Procedure, and that even if it had such authority, the conversion was no longer possible because the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for correction of manifest errors.
• Timeliness: Petitioner argued that under Section 5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for correction of manifest errors must be filed not later than five days following the date of proclamation. Since petitioner was proclaimed on May 18, 2001, respondent should have filed by May 23, 2001, but filed only on May 25, 2001 — two days late.
• Directive to Canvassers: Petitioner challenged the COMELEC's directive to the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Zambales to reconvene, canvass anew the corrected certificates of canvass, and proclaim the winning candidate for the disputed position.

• Nature of Pleading: Respondent maintained that the allegations in his petition actually sought correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes, specifically the reduction of his votes from 41 to 4 in Precinct No. 29-A-1, and that the COMELEC properly determined the true nature of the case from its averments rather than its caption.
• Counter-Protest Baseless: Respondent argued that petitioner's counter-protest and allegations of influence-peddling in San Marcelino were based on mere speculation, devoid of any proof.
• Solicitor General's Position: The Solicitor General, commenting on the petition, disputed petitioner's theory and prayed that the petition be denied for lack of merit.

• Reclassification of Pleading: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in treating respondent's election protest as a petition for correction of manifest errors.
• Suspension of Rules and Timeliness: Whether the COMELEC could suspend its own rules to entertain the petition despite its having been filed two days beyond the reglementary period for correction of manifest errors.
• Directive to Canvassers: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers to reconvene, canvass anew, and proclaim the true winning candidate.

• Reclassification of Pleading: No. The COMELEC has the authority to determine the true nature of a case from the allegations of the pleading rather than its caption, and respondent's petition, though captioned as an election protest, actually sought correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes.
• Suspension of Rules and Timeliness: No. The COMELEC may suspend its own rules under Section 4, Rule 1 of its Rules of Procedure in the interest of justice and speedy disposition, and technicalities should not defeat the true will of the electorate.
• Directive to Canvassers: No. The directive was proper, as petitioner's proclamation was based on an erroneous and incomplete canvass, and the COMELEC has authority to annul an illegal proclamation and order a new canvass.

• Reclassification of Pleading: The Constitution vests the COMELEC with broad powers over the enforcement and administration of election laws and the resolution of election controversies, including the authority to promulgate its own rules of procedure. Concomitant to these powers is the authority to determine the true nature of cases filed before it by examining the allegations of every pleading, since the averments rather than the title or caption are the proper gauges of a pleading's nature. A reading of respondent's petition revealed that what was being sought was the correction of manifest errors in the Statement of Votes — specifically, the reduction of his 41 votes to 4 in Precinct No. 29-A-1. The fact that respondent prayed for annulment of petitioner's proclamation did not change the nature of the petition, as the prayer for relief cannot create a cause of action or determine jurisdiction. Furthermore, petitioner was estopped from questioning COMELEC's jurisdiction, having actively participated in the proceedings and sought affirmative relief through her answer with counter-protest.

• Suspension of Rules and Timeliness: In election cases, the primary duty of the COMELEC and the courts is to ascertain by all means the will of the electorate. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not stand as obstacles to determining the true will of the people in the choice of their elective officials. The Court cited Duremdes vs. COMELEC for the principle that election laws and rules must be liberally construed so that the will of the people is not defeated by mere technical objections, and Tatlonghari vs. COMELEC and Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC for the proposition that a petition filed out of time alone will not thwart proper determination on substantial grounds, especially where the proclamation was based on a faulty tabulation and was thus void from the start. Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure expressly allows the suspension of the rules in the interest of justice and speedy disposition, which is in accordance with the spirit of Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution granting the COMELEC power to promulgate its own rules.

• Directive to Canvassers: Petitioner did not assail the COMELEC's factual finding that there was indeed a manifest error in the copying of figures from the Election Return to the Statement of Votes — the 41 votes garnered by respondent in Precinct No. 29-A-1 were reduced to 4 in the Statement of Votes. Given this admitted error, the COMELEC's order to correct the Statement of Votes to reflect the true will of the people of Castillejos was proper. Since petitioner's proclamation was based on an erroneous and incomplete canvass, it was void, and the COMELEC had authority to annul it and direct a new canvass and proclamation of the true winning candidate.

• Determination of the True Nature of a Pleading — The true nature of a complaint or petition is determined by its averments or allegations, not by its title or caption. The prayer for relief, although part of the pleading, cannot create a cause of action and does not determine the nature of the action or the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The COMELEC applied this principle in reclassifying respondent's election protest as a petition for correction of manifest errors based on the substance of the allegations.

• Estoppel from Questioning Jurisdiction — A party who actively participates in proceedings before a tribunal and submits its case for decision cannot later attack the decision for lack of jurisdiction simply because the decision was adverse. Petitioner was estopped from questioning the COMELEC's jurisdiction because she actively participated in the July 16, 2001 hearing and filed an answer with counter-protest seeking affirmative relief.

• Primacy of the Electorate's Will over Technicalities — In election cases, the determination of the true will of the electorate is paramount. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to ascertaining the true will of the electorate. Election laws and rules must be liberally construed so that the will of the people is not defeated by mere technical objections.

• Authority to Annul Illegal Proclamations — The COMELEC has authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made. The fact that a candidate has assumed office is no bar to the exercise of such power. A proclamation based on a faulty tabulation is void from the beginning, and the assumption of office cannot affect the basic issues.

• Suspension of COMELEC Rules — Under Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the COMELEC may suspend its own rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice and to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before it. This power is in accordance with Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution.

• "Technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials… Laws (and rules) governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections." — This passage, quoting Duremdes vs. COMELEC, articulates the controlling principle that the ascertainment of the electorate's will takes precedence over procedural technicalities in election cases.

• "The prayer in a pleading does not constitute an essential part of the allegations determinative of the jurisdiction of a court. The question of jurisdiction depends largely upon the determination of the true nature of the action filed by a party which, in turn, involves the consideration of the ultimate facts alleged as constitutive of the cause of action therein." — This passage defines the doctrine that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the pleading, not by the prayer for relief, which the Court applied to uphold the COMELEC's reclassification of the petition.

• "Adherence to a technicality that would put a stamp of validity on a palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will, cannot be countenanced." — Quoted from Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC, this passage reinforces the principle that a void proclamation cannot be validated by invoking procedural rules on timeliness.

• Trinidad vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134657, December 15, 1999 — Cited for the definition of "correction of manifest errors" as referring to errors in election returns, entries in the statement of votes by precinct, or the certificate of canvass, and for the meaning of "manifest" as evident, open, palpable, and incontrovertible.

• Duremdes vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 86362-63, October 27, 1989 — Cited as controlling authority for the principle that technicalities should not obstruct the determination of the true will of the electorate, and that election laws must be liberally construed.

• Tatlonghari vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 86645, July 31, 1991 — Followed for the proposition that where a proclamation was based on a clerical error or mathematical mistake, it is void from the beginning, and the timeliness of a challenge need not be passed upon where the proclamation itself was illegal.

• Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273 (1995) — Followed for the principle that a petition filed out of time alone will not thwart determination on substantial grounds, and that adherence to technicality validating a void proclamation cannot be countenanced.

• Enojas vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129938, December 12, 1997 — Cited for the principle that the COMELEC examines the allegations of every pleading to determine the true nature of the case, as averments rather than the caption are the proper gauges.

• Pangarungan vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 107435-36, December 11, 1992 — Cited for the doctrine of estoppel from questioning jurisdiction after active participation in proceedings.

• Section 6, Article IX-A, 1987 Constitution — Grants the COMELEC the power to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it. The Court held that the COMELEC's suspension of its rules was in accordance with the spirit of this constitutional provision.

• Article IX(C), Sections 2 and 3, 1987 Constitution — Vests the COMELEC with broad powers involving the enforcement and administration of election laws and the resolution of election controversies, and the authority to promulgate its rules of procedure for the expeditious disposition of election cases.

• Section 4, Rule 1, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Authorizes the COMELEC to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice and to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before it. The Court relied on this provision to uphold the COMELEC's suspension of its rules to entertain respondent's petition despite its late filing.

• Section 1, Rule 20, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that a petition for election protest must be filed within ten days after proclamation. Petitioner invoked this provision to argue that the reclassification was improper.

• Section 5, Rule 27, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that a petition for correction of manifest errors must be filed not later than five days following the date of proclamation. Petitioner invoked this to argue that respondent's petition, filed two days late, was time-barred.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.