Manzala vs. Commission on Elections

In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 from a COMELEC decision in a municipal election protest, the Court will not disturb the COMELEC’s factual findings on ballot appreciation absent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the COMELEC en banc’s review of a motion for reconsideration is not a de novo review as in criminal appeals.

Ibarra R. Manzala and Julie R. Monton were rival candidates for Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon in the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections. The dispute implicates the COMELEC’s constitutional quasi-judicial authority over election contests involving elective municipal officials and the limited scope of certiorari review of COMELEC decisions under the Rules of Court.

Ibarra R. Manzala and Julie R. Monton were rival candidates for Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon in the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections. On May 13, 2004, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Monton as the duly elected Municipal Mayor with 2,579 votes, a margin of 13 votes over Manzala’s 2,566 votes. On May 19, 2004, Manzala filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch 81 (Election Protest Case No. 7), seeking a recount in the 10 precincts of Magdiwang on grounds of fraud, serious irregularities, and willful violation of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Bilang 881) and other pertinent COMELEC rules allegedly committed by voters and the Chairman and members of the Board of Election Inspectors. Monton filed an Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim, averring that the election was held peacefully with no irregularity whatsoever, and by way of counter-protest contested Precincts 41A, 40A, 39A, 38A, 37A, 36A and 35A of Barangay Tampayan; Precincts 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 9B of Barangay Poblacion; Precinct 16A of Barangay Agutay; Precinct 24A of Barangay Dulangan; and Precinct 32A of Barangay Jao-asan. Manzala filed a Reply and Answer to the Counter-Protest and Counterclaim, and a revision of ballots was later conducted.

In its decision of December 8, 2005, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Manzala, proclaiming him the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon during the May 10, 2004 election, having won over Monton with a majority of 137 valid votes, and annulling the proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Manzala moved for execution of the decision pending appeal, which the trial court granted on December 16, 2005.

On appeal, Monton raised the following assignment of errors: that the trial court seriously erred in invalidating 144 votes of Monton ostensibly on the ground of pattern voting; that sets of ballots were marked, as well as written by two persons; that the trial court erred in not considering and appreciating the objections raised by Monton involving the counter-protested precincts, and in arriving at its decision, it considered only the objections and/or exhibits of Manzala; and that the trial court seriously erred when it declared Manzala as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon despite the patent defects in the appealed decision.

On August 24, 2006, the Former Second Division of the COMELEC issued a Resolution reversing and setting aside the trial court’s decision. It found that Monton obtained 2,560 votes, a margin of 17 votes over Manzala’s 2,543 votes, and declared Monton the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon during the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections. Manzala’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc in its Resolution of January 24, 2007, which affirmed the earlier Resolution dated August 24, 2006 with modification as to the number of votes obtained by both parties after re-appreciation: Monton garnered 2,535 votes, a margin of 60 votes over Manzala’s 2,475 votes.

On February 1, 2007, Manzala filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, contending that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring Monton as the duly elected Municipal Mayor and praying that the COMELEC be directed to cease and desist from implementing the challenged Resolutions of August 24, 2006 and January 24, 2007. Thereafter, acting on Monton’s Motion for Immediate Execution and Issuance of an Entry of Judgment, the COMELEC en banc issued a writ of execution on February 28, 2007 declaring its Resolution of January 24, 2007 final and executory as of February 26, 2007. Consequently, in the Order dated March 1, 2007, the COMELEC en banc directed implementation of the writ, ordering Manzala to cease and desist from discharging the powers and functions of the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon; to relinquish and vacate the post in favor of Monton; and to cause the smooth turn-over of the office to her.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring private respondent as the duly elected Municipal Mayor and sought annulment of the August 24, 2006 and January 24, 2007 Resolutions.
• De Novo Review: Petitioner argued that the motion for reconsideration filed with the Former Second Division of the COMELEC “has thrown the whole case wide open for review as in a trial de novo in a criminal case,” yet the COMELEC en banc failed to conduct a thorough review of the contested ballots.
• Trial Court’s Ballot Appreciation: Petitioner contended that the trial court’s “judicial appreciation of the contested ballots [should be] honored, respected, and given the importance it deserves by [this] Court.”
• Injunctive Relief: Petitioner claimed misinterpretation and misapplication of law by the COMELEC and sought a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to prevent the COMELEC from disrupting the stability of governance in the Municipality of Magdiwang, Romblon while the petition was reviewed.

• Impropriety and Misappreciation: Respondent maintained that to allow petitioner’s arguments to prevail would make him assume office by the grace of impropriety and misappreciation of ballots by the lower court, whose decision had already been reversed and set aside by the Former Second Division of the COMELEC and affirmed by the Commission en banc.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions declaring private respondent duly elected.
• Scope of COMELEC En Banc Review: Whether the motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc threw the whole case wide open for review as in a trial de novo in a criminal case, requiring a thorough review of the contested ballots.
• Appreciation of Contested Ballots: Whether the trial court’s judicial appreciation of the contested ballots should be honored, respected, and given importance by the Supreme Court.
• Injunctive Relief: Whether petitioner is entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to prevent the COMELEC from implementing the assailed Resolutions.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC acted within its appellate jurisdiction, and certiorari under Rule 65 lies only for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; none was shown.
• Scope of COMELEC En Banc Review: No. Election cases are not treated like criminal cases where the whole case is thrown open for review; the COMELEC en banc thoroughly reviewed the division’s decision and affirmed it with modification after re-appreciation.
• Appreciation of Contested Ballots: No. Ballot and election-document appreciation is a question of fact best left to the COMELEC as a specialized agency; absent grave abuse, jurisdictional infirmity, or error of law, its factual findings are not interfered with.
• Injunctive Relief: No. The dismissal of the petition removed any factual and legal basis for injunctive relief.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution grants the COMELEC quasi-judicial power to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable. Section 3 thereof grants the COMELEC administrative power, either en banc or in two divisions, to promulgate its rules of procedure to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, and requires that all election cases be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. From the decision of the trial court, the COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction to review, revise, modify, or even reverse and set aside the decision of the former and substitute it with its own decision. Under Section 2, Rule 64 and Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the only question that may be raised and/or resolved in a special civil action of certiorari is whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. No such abuse existed.
• Scope of COMELEC En Banc Review: Petitioner’s argument that the motion for reconsideration filed with the Former Second Division threw the whole case wide open for review as in a trial de novo in a criminal case has no basis. Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, the whole case is thrown open for review and the appellate court can resolve issues which are not even set forth in the pleadings. In the present case, the COMELEC en banc had thoroughly reviewed the decision of its Former Second Division and affirmed the findings thereof with modification as to the number of votes obtained by both parties after re-appreciation, that is, private respondent obtained 2,535 votes, or a margin of 60 votes, over petitioner’s 2,475 votes.
• Appreciation of Contested Ballots: Petitioner’s contention that the trial court’s judicial appreciation of the contested ballots should be honored, respected, and given importance has no merit. Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court states that from a judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Thus, in a special civil action of certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65, the only question that may be raised and/or resolved is whether or not the COMELEC had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, the appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. The COMELEC is the constitutional commission vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Consequently, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by this Court. The Court cited Carloto vs. COMELEC and Punzalan vs. COMELEC.
• Injunctive Relief: To justify the issuance of an injunctive relief, petitioner claimed that there had been a misinterpretation and misapplication of the law by the COMELEC and that a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order should be issued to prevent the COMELEC from disrupting the stability of governance in the Municipality of Magdiwang, Romblon while the petition was being reviewed. As a consequence of the dismissal of the petition, petitioner’s prayer for any form of injunctive relief perforce had no factual and legal basis.

• COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction over municipal election contests — Under Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable. In this case, the COMELEC properly reviewed and reversed the RTC decision.
• Limited certiorari review of COMELEC decisions — A party aggrieved by a COMELEC judgment, final order, or resolution may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but the only question is whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found none.
• Election cases are not criminal appeals; no de novo review — Election cases cannot be treated like criminal cases where an appeal from conviction opens the whole case for review and allows the appellate court to resolve issues not set forth in the pleadings. The COMELEC en banc’s reconsideration of a division decision is not such a de novo review.
• Deference to COMELEC factual findings on ballot appreciation — The appreciation of contested ballots and election documents is a question of fact best left to the COMELEC as a specialized agency tasked with election supervision. Absent grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, its factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions on matters within its competence shall not be interfered with by the Court.
• Injunctive relief requires legal and factual basis — The dismissal of the petition removed the basis for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.

• "Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, the whole case is thrown open for review and the appellate court can resolve issues which are not even set forth in the pleadings." — This states the ratio for rejecting petitioner’s claim that the motion for reconsideration opened the entire election case to de novo review.
• "the appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country." — This defines the deference accorded to the COMELEC’s factual findings on ballot appreciation.
• "in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings and decisions rendered by the said Commission on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by this Court." — This is the canonical formulation of the limited scope of judicial review over COMELEC factual determinations.
• "WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of showing that the Commission on Elections committed any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution, dated August 24, 2006, by the Former Second Division and the Resolution, dated January 24, 2007, by the Commission en banc, which declared private respondent Julie R. Monton to be the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon in the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections." — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

• Carloto vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174155, January 24, 2007 — Cited in support of the rule that in a special civil action of certiorari under Section 1 of Rule 65, the only question that may be raised and/or resolved is whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Punzalan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126669, April 27, 1998, 289 SCRA 702 — Cited for the rule that, absent grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions of the COMELEC on matters within its competence shall not be interfered with by the Court.

• Article IX-C, Section 2(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides the COMELEC with quasi-judicial power to exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. Applied to uphold the COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction over the municipal mayoralty protest.
• Article IX-C, Section 3, 1987 Constitution — States the administrative power of the COMELEC, either en banc or in two divisions, to promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. Applied to the COMELEC’s division and en banc actions.
• Section 2, Rule 64, Rules of Court — From a judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Applied to petitioner’s remedy and the limited review.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — In a special civil action of certiorari, the only question that may be raised and/or resolved is whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Applied to dismiss the petition for failure to show grave abuse.

The following are listed under “WE CONCUR”: Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno; Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio (On leave), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (On Leave), Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.