Quilala vs. Commission on Elections

A board of canvassers need not issue a fresh notice when it merely recesses after convening and later resumes the canvass in another room of the same municipal building; candidates and their watchers bear the duty to verify when the actual canvass will proceed. The absence of a watcher does not invalidate the canvass so long as notice was properly served and an opportunity to send one was given.

Cirilo M. Quilala was the KBL candidate for Mayor of Currimao, Ilocos Norte, while Wilbur Go was the official administration candidate for the same office in the January 18, 1988 elections. The Omnibus Election Code required the Municipal Board of Canvassers to meet and canvass election returns not later than 6:00 p.m. on election day, to continue from day to day until completion, and to finish within 36 hours.

In the January 18, 1988 elections, Cirilo M. Quilala ran for Mayor of Currimao, Ilocos Norte under the KBL, while Wilbur Go ran as the official administration candidate for the same office. The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Currimao, Ilocos Norte completed its canvass of the election returns in the afternoon of January 19, 1988 and immediately thereafter proclaimed the winning candidates. The Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation dated January 19, 1988 stated that after the canvass, Wilbur C. Go received 2,594 votes for Mayor, a plurality of the votes legally cast for the office.

On January 21, 1988, Quilala filed a petition with the COMELEC, docketed as SPC No. 88214. He alleged that he was not represented in the canvassing because the canvass was conducted only in the morning of January 19, 1988, in violation of the Omnibus Election Code requirement that the Board immediately meet and canvass the election returns not later than 6:00 p.m. on election day; because he was not notified of the resetting and the time, place, and date of the canvass; and because his representative was prevented from witnessing the canvass by elements of the Philippine Marines. He claimed that the absence of representation appeared from the fact that the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation did not contain the signature of the KBL representative. He prayed for a declaration of nullity of the canvass and proclamation of Wilbur Go and for an order directing the Board to conduct a proper canvass.

Before the COMELEC, there was no dispute that Quilala was notified that the Board would convene to canvass the election returns at 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 1988 at the Municipal Hall, and no dispute that he was not represented in the canvass until Go's proclamation. The disagreement was over the circumstances of that absence. The COMELEC found that the Board met briefly at 6:00 p.m. and called for representatives of the political parties; when no election returns were available for canvass, Mr. Anolin left for his office and returned at 10:00 p.m. The Board commenced actual canvass at 10:00 p.m. when the returns arrived, and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman remained in the municipal building throughout the night from 6:00 p.m. of January 18 until the canvass terminated at 6:17 a.m. on January 19, 1988.

Quilala's witness Ms. Laed testified that she checked all the rooms of the Municipal Building after 6:00 p.m. when she could not locate the Board, and that she returned to the building at around 3:00 a.m. on January 19, 1988, when she was allegedly prevented by Marines from entering. The COMELEC rejected her testimony as unreliable, noting that teachers who were members of the Board of Election Inspectors came and went as they delivered election returns, and that her claim of staying in the vicinity after being barred was not the natural reaction of a watcher keenly interested in protecting her candidate's interest. The COMELEC also found Mr. Sevilla's testimony full of contradictions: in his January 21, 1988 affidavit he stated that when the Board deliberated and canvassed the results in the morning of January 19, 1988, he noticed the KBL representative was present, while in his January 24, 1988 affidavit he asserted that at about 10:00 p.m. on January 18, 1988, Chairman Balbuena called him for the start of the canvass and he called attention to the absence of representatives of parties. The COMELEC found the evidence for the respondent more credible and noted that nowhere in Sevilla's affidavit was there any indication of defects in the election returns that could have been bases for objections.

• Non-Representation in Canvass: Petitioner argued that he was not represented in the canvassing because the canvass was conducted only in the morning of January 19, 1988, contrary to the Omnibus Election Code requirement that the Board immediately meet and canvass the election returns not later than 6:00 p.m. on election day; because he was not notified of the resetting and the time, place, and date of the canvass; and because his representative was prevented by elements of the Philippine Marines from witnessing the canvass.
• Absence of KBL Signature: Petitioner argued that the absence of the KBL representative's signature on the Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation showed that he had no representation in the canvass.
• Due Process — New Notice: Petitioner argued that he was notified that the Board would convene at 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 1988 at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan, but was not notified of the subsequent canvass held on January 19, 1988 at the Treasurer's Office of the same Sangguniang Bayan, violating his right to due process.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner claimed that the COMELEC (Second Division) committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its decision dismissing SPC No. 88-214 and confirming the validity of the Board's proceedings.

• Due Process — Notice of Resumed Canvass: Whether petitioner's right to due process was violated when the Board of Canvassers did not issue another notice for the canvass that resumed at 10:00 p.m. on January 18, 1988 at the Treasurer's Office after it had convened at 6:00 p.m. at the Session Hall of the Sangguniang Bayan.
• Watcher's Absence — Validity of Canvass: Whether the absence of petitioner's watcher during the actual canvass invalidated the canvass and the proclamation of respondent Wilbur Go.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC (Second Division) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing SPC No. 88-214 and confirming the validity of the Board of Canvassers' proceedings.

• Due Process — Notice of Resumed Canvass: No. The Board did not hold a new meeting; it merely recessed after convening at 6:00 p.m. because no returns were available, and it resumed as soon as returns arrived. A fresh notice was not required.
• Watcher's Absence — Validity of Canvass: No. The presence of a watcher may be waived or may fail by mishap; absence does not affect the Board's proceedings so long as notice was properly served and an opportunity to send a watcher was given. Petitioner showed no prejudice.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC's conclusion on a matter within its competence is entitled to utmost respect absent jurisdictional infirmity or an error of law of the utmost gravity, and none was shown.

• Due Process — Notice of Resumed Canvass: The SC agreed with the COMELEC that no further notice was necessary when the Board recessed at 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 1988. The notice demanded was unnecessary because there was no subsequent meeting: the Board merely recessed after convening at 6:00 p.m. because no returns were yet available, and it resumed as soon as the returns arrived. Section 231, B.P. Blg. 881 required the Board to meet continuously from day to day until the canvass was completed, to adjourn only to await other election returns, and to resume immediately once returns were delivered; the Board had to complete the canvass within 36 hours. Petitioner could not claim ignorance of these provisions because they directly affected his political fortune; it was his duty and that of his watcher to verify when the actual canvass would be made. As cited in Sabeniano vs. Comelec, candidates and their representatives or watchers must station or deploy themselves among the voting and canvassing centers to watch the proceedings from the first hour of voting through the counting of votes until the completion of the canvassing of election returns so that they can make of record in the minutes of the election committee and canvassing board their objections remarks regarding the conduct of the proceedings. The alleged defect in the notice was only one of form, not substance: the discrepancy was between the specific place in the Sangguniang Bayan stated in the notice and the place in the same building where the canvassing was actually held, and petitioner did not explain why his watcher, with a modicum of diligence and resourcefulness, failed to find the canvassing place.
• Watcher's Absence — Validity of Canvass: The presence of a candidate's or party's watcher is a right under Section 239, B.P. Blg. 881, Section 25, R.A. 6646, and Section 12, Res. No. 1965, but there is no compulsion on the candidate or party to send one. The presence of watchers may be waived, or they may deliberately or by mishap fail to attend; such absence does not affect the Board's proceedings so long as notice of the proceedings was properly served and an opportunity to send a watcher was given, because the duty to protect one's interest lies with the candidate or party. Petitioner did not show prejudice from his watcher's failure to attend: he did not disclose what substantive issues the watcher would have raised, and the COMELEC found no indication in Sevilla's affidavit of defects in the election returns that could have been bases for objections. The COMELEC also rejected the testimonies of Laed and Sevilla as unreliable and found respondent's evidence more credible.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The SC found no merit in petitioner's claim that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing its questioned decision. As held in Sidro vs. Comelec, in the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or an error of law of the utmost gravity, the conclusion reached by the COMELEC on a matter that falls within its competence is entitled to the utmost respect. The SC saw justification to reiterate that principle and dismissed the petition.

• Duty to assign watchers and verify canvass proceedings — Candidates and their representatives or watchers must station themselves at voting and canvassing centers to watch the proceedings and make objections, and they cannot rely solely on the notice given; it is their responsibility to verify when the actual canvass will proceed. The SC applied this against Quilala, whose watcher failed to locate the canvass in the same municipal building.
• Watcher's presence is a right, not a mandatory requirement for the board — Under Section 239, B.P. Blg. 881, Section 25, R.A. 6646, and Section 12, Res. No. 1965, a candidate or party has the right to send a watcher, but there is no compulsion to do so; the watcher's absence, whether waived or due to mishap, does not affect the Board's proceedings if notice was properly served and an opportunity to send a watcher was given. The SC applied this to uphold the canvass despite the absence of Quilala's KBL representative.
• Board of canvassers may recess to await returns; no new notice for resumption — Under Section 231, B.P. Blg. 881, the board must meet continuously from day to day until the canvass is completed, may adjourn only to await other election returns, and must immediately resume canvassing once returns are delivered; it must complete the canvass within 36 hours. The SC applied this to hold that the Board's 6:00 p.m. recess and 10:00 p.m. resumption did not require a fresh notice.
• COMELEC findings entitled to utmost respect — Absent jurisdictional infirmity or an error of law of the utmost gravity, the COMELEC's conclusion on a matter within its competence is entitled to the utmost respect. The SC applied this in dismissing the certiorari petition.
• Notice defect as to specific room is formal, not substantive — A discrepancy between the specific room stated in the notice and the room in the same building where canvassing is actually held is a defect of form, not substance, especially where the candidate or watcher fails to show prejudice. The SC applied this to reject Quilala's due process claim.

• "Indeed, the notice demanded by petitioner is not necessary because there was no subsequent meeting of the Board of Canvassers to speak of. It merely recessed after it convened at 6:00 p.m. on January 18, 1988 because there were no returns to canvass yet. However, it resumed its proceedings as soon as the returns arrived." — The SC uses this to reject the due process claim based on lack of a fresh notice for the resumed canvass.
• "The presence of such watchers may be waived, or such watchers may deliberately or by mishap, fail to attend the canvassing. Such absence does not affect the proceedings of the Board so long as notice of the proceedings had been properly served and an opportunity to send a watcher was given. The duty to protect one's interest lies with the candidate or the party." — The SC uses this to hold that the absence of Quilala's watcher did not invalidate the canvass.
• "The alleged defect in the notice is only one of form, not substance." — The SC characterizes the discrepancy in the room within the same Sangguniang Bayan building as a formal, not substantive, defect.
• "in the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or an error of law of the utmost gravity, the conclusion reached by the respondent Commission on a matter that falls within its competence is entitled to the utmost respect" — The SC invokes this standard to defer to the COMELEC's findings and dismiss the certiorari petition.

• Sabeniano vs. Comelec, 101 SCRA 289, 301 — Cited to support the duty of candidates and their representatives or watchers to assign themselves to counting and canvassing centers and to watch the proceedings to protect the sanctity and purity of the ballots.
• Sidro vs. Comelec, 102 SCRA 853 — Cited as the controlling precedent that the COMELEC's conclusion on a matter within its competence is entitled to the utmost respect absent jurisdictional infirmity or an error of law of the utmost gravity.

• Section 231, B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Required the Board of Canvassers to meet continuously from day to day until the canvass was completed, to adjourn only to await other election returns, and to resume immediately once returns were delivered; the Board had to complete the canvass within 36 hours. The SC applied this to hold that the Board's recess and resumption did not require a new notice.
• Section 239, B.P. Blg. 881 — Cited as giving a candidate or party the right to have a watcher present at the canvassing. The SC applied this together with the other watcher provisions to hold that the watcher's absence did not invalidate the proceedings where notice and opportunity were given.
• Section 25, R.A. 6646 — Also cited for the right to send a watcher. The SC applied it in the same manner as Section 239.
• Section 12, Res. No. 1965 — Also cited for the right to send a watcher. The SC applied it in the same manner as Section 239.