Torres vs. COMELEC

The COMELEC has the power to annul the proclamation of a winning candidate and order the reconvening of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to correct a mathematical error in the Statement of Votes, even after proclamation has been made, because a proclamation based on a flawed Statement of Votes is null and void and is "no proclamation at all," which cannot deprive the COMELEC of its power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.

The case involves the constitutional mandate of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to decide questions affecting elections and to exercise direct control and supervision over boards of canvassers. Section 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for the correction of errors in tabulation or tallying of results by the Board of Canvassers, including mistakes in adding or copying figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by precinct. The dispute centers on whether this correction power survives a proclamation that was based on an erroneous computation.

On 9 May 1995, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tanza, Cavite issued a Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates for Municipal Offices (Municipal Councilors), proclaiming eight winning candidates: (1) Wilfredo A. Nuñez, 14,888 votes; (2) Yuri A. Pacumio, 13,445 votes; (3) Rogelino A. Dones, 12,428 votes; (4) Francisco C. Pasco, 12,218 votes; (5) Rosauro I. Torres, 12,055 votes; (6) Rosalita C. Cenizal, 12,035 votes; (7) Eliseo R. Arcaira Jr., 11,939 votes; and (8) Policarpio A. Bocalan, 11,790 votes. Accordingly, petitioner Atty. Rosauro I. Torres was proclaimed as the fifth winning candidate for councilor.

Two days later, on 11 May 1995, the same Municipal Board of Canvassers requested the COMELEC for correction of the number of votes garnered by petitioner, who was earlier proclaimed as the fifth winning candidate for councilor. The letter-request, signed by Rudolph Melon and Norma Abril as Vice Chairman and Secretary respectively, stated that the votes intended for Mr. Bernardo C. Dimaala in the sub-total as reflected in the Statement of Votes by precinct were erroneously added to Mr. Torres for a total of Nine Hundred Thirty Four (934) votes. The letter further stated that Mr. Torres should have been number ten (10) in the winning column and that if correction were made, Mr. Torres would garner a total of Eleven Thousand One Hundred Twenty One (11,121) votes while Mr. de Peralta garnered a total of Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Ten (11,610) votes.

On 16 May 1995, the COMELEC set the case for hearing, and summonses with notices of hearing were sent to petitioner and private respondent requiring them to file their respective answers to the letter of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Petitioner filed his answer alleging that the subject matter of the letter-petition properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Sec. 251 of the Omnibus Election Code. Private respondent, on the other hand, argued for the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner and prayed for his own proclamation as the winning candidate.

On 28 June 1995, respondent COMELEC issued the assailed En Banc resolution granting the letter-request of the Municipal Board of Canvassers for the correction of the number of votes garnered by petitioner, and ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim private respondent Vicente Rafael A. de Peralta as the eighth winning councilor of Tanza, Cavite. On 5 July 1995, the Municipal Board of Canvassers issued a corrected Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates which included private respondent as the eighth winning councilor and excluded petitioner from the new list of winning candidates.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that respondent COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in granting the request of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to correct the votes garnered by petitioner and in ordering the proclamation of private respondent as the eighth winning candidate, thereby ousting petitioner from the new list of winners.
• Lack of Legal Personality of the Board: Petitioner argued that the Municipal Board of Canvassers had no legal personality to file the action motu proprio before the COMELEC for correction.
• Corrections Only Before Proclamation: Petitioner argued, citing Respicio vs. Cusi, that corrections are allowed only when there has been no proclamation yet.
• Termination of Board's Functions: Petitioner argued that once the Municipal Board of Canvassers has declared and proclaimed the winners in an election, its functions are finished and its existence is terminated.

• Excess of Jurisdiction (OSG Position): The Office of the Solicitor General submitted that respondent COMELEC acted beyond the limits of its power and authority when it ordered the Municipal Board of Canvassers to reconvene and correct its alleged mistake in counting the votes cast for candidate Dimaala in favor of petitioner, and that by doing so, COMELEC had exercised original jurisdiction over a municipal election contest contrary to the Constitution, citing Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, par. 2 of the Constitution which provides that the COMELEC shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction.
• Flawed Proclamation (COMELEC Position): Respondent COMELEC argued that the proclamation of petitioner was flawed from the beginning for being tainted with clerical error or mathematical mistake in the addition of votes, and that pursuant to Villaroya vs. Comelec, COMELEC has original jurisdiction on all matters relating to election returns, including the verification of the number of votes received by opposing candidates.
• Purely Mathematical Error (COMELEC Position): Respondent COMELEC argued, citing Tatlonghari vs. Comelec, that when what is involved is purely mathematical and/or mechanical error in the operation of the adding machine committed by the board of canvassers but does not involve any opening of ballot boxes, examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns, all that is required is to reconvene the board of canvassers to rectify the error it inadvertently committed.
• Power of Control and Supervision (COMELEC Position): Respondent COMELEC contended that since it has direct control and supervision over the municipal board of canvassers, it has authority to direct the latter to reconvene and continue its assigned task in proclaiming the rightful winner for municipal councilor.

• Jurisdiction to Annul Proclamation: Whether the COMELEC En Banc has jurisdiction to annul the proclamation of a winning candidate and order the reconvening of the Municipal Board of Canvassers to correct an error in the Statement of Votes, even after proclamation has been made.
• Validity of the Proclamation: Whether the proclamation of petitioner Torres, which was based on a Statement of Votes containing a mathematical error, is valid and effective so as to deprive the COMELEC of its power to correct the error.

• Jurisdiction to Annul Proclamation: Yes. The COMELEC En Banc has authority to resolve any question pertaining to the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, pursuant to its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections. The correction of a mathematical error in the Statement of Votes is within its power, and the proclamation based on such flawed Statement of Votes is null and void.
• Validity of the Proclamation: No. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all, and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.

• Jurisdiction to Annul Proclamation: The Court applied Sec. 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides for the correction of errors in tabulation or tallying of results by the Board of Canvassers, including mistakes in the adding or copying of figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by precinct. Citing Castromayor vs. Comelec, the Court held that although the provision applies to pre-proclamation controversies, there is nothing to prevent its application to cases where the validity of the proclamation is precisely in question. The Court also cited Duremdes vs. Comelec, which sustained the power of the COMELEC En Banc to order a correction of the Statement of Votes to make it conform to the election returns. Since the Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation. The Court further held that in making the correction in the computation, the Municipal Board of Canvassers acted in an administrative capacity under the control and supervision of the COMELEC, and pursuant to its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections, the COMELEC En Banc has authority to resolve any question pertaining to the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
• Validity of the Proclamation: The Court rejected the argument that because petitioner had already been proclaimed as winning candidate, the remedy of the losing party is an election protest over which the Regional Trial Court has original jurisdiction. Citing Duremdes, the Court held that this is on the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all, and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation, citing Aguam vs. COMELEC. The Court characterized the error as simple arithmetic — the Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns, and what was involved in the instant case was simple arithmetic.

• Null and Void Proclamation Doctrine — Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all, and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that a proclamation based on a Statement of Votes containing a mathematical error is void, and the COMELEC retains its power to correct the error and order the proclamation of the rightful winner.
• Correction of Errors in Tabulation Doctrine — Under Sec. 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, where it is clearly shown that manifest errors were committed in the tabulation or tallying of election returns or certificates of canvass during the canvassing — such as a mistake in the adding or copying of figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by precinct — the board may motu proprio or upon verified petition by any candidate, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed. Although the provision applies to pre-proclamation controversies, it may also apply to cases where the validity of the proclamation is precisely in question.
• Statement of Votes as Basis of Proclamation Doctrine — Since the Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation. The Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per precinct of the votes obtained by the candidates as reflected in the election returns.

• "Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation (Aguam v. COMELEC, L-28955, 28 May 1968, 23 SCRA 883)." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi: a void proclamation does not bar the COMELEC from exercising its correction powers, and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office is of no consequence.
• "Since the Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation, any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation." — This passage articulates the doctrinal link between the Statement of Votes, the Certificate of Canvass, and the validity of the proclamation, which is central to the Court's reasoning.
• "In making the correction in the computation the Municipal Board of Canvassers acted in an administrative capacity under the control and supervision of the COMELEC. Pursuant to its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections, the COMELEC En Banc has authority to resolve any question pertaining to the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers." — This passage establishes the constitutional basis for the COMELEC's authority over the correction of errors in the canvassing process.

• Castromayor vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 120426, 23 November 1995, 250 SCRA 298 — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that Sec. 7, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, although applicable to pre-proclamation controversies, may also apply to cases where the validity of the proclamation is precisely in question.
• Duremdes vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 86362-63, 27 October 1989, 178 SCRA 746 — Cited as controlling authority sustaining the power of the COMELEC En Banc to order a correction of the Statement of Votes to make it conform to the election returns, and for the proposition that a null and void proclamation is no proclamation at all.
• Aguam vs. COMELEC, L-28955, 28 May 1968, 23 SCRA 883 — Cited as authority for the doctrine that a null and void proclamation cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the proclamation.
• Villaroya vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 79646-47, 13 November 1987, 155 SCRA 633 — Cited by respondent COMELEC for the proposition that it has original jurisdiction on all matters relating to election returns, including the verification of the number of votes received by opposing candidates.
• Tatlonghari vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 86645, 31 July 1991, 199 SCRA 849 — Cited by respondent COMELEC for the proposition that when what is involved is purely mathematical and/or mechanical error committed by the board of canvassers, all that is required is to reconvene the board to rectify the error.
• Respicio vs. Cusi, No. L-34427, 11 April 1972, 44 SCRA 392 — Cited by petitioner for the proposition that corrections are allowed only when there has been no proclamation yet; the Court implicitly rejected this application.

• Sec. 7, Rule 27, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides for the correction of errors in tabulation or tallying of results by the Board of Canvassers, including mistakes in the adding or copying of figures into the certificate of canvass or into the statement of votes by precinct. The Court applied this provision to uphold the COMELEC's correction of the mathematical error in the Statement of Votes.
• Art. IX-C, Sec. 2, par. 2, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the COMELEC shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction. Cited by the OSG to argue that COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction; the Court implicitly rejected this argument by characterizing the correction as an administrative function rather than an election contest.
• Sec. 251, Omnibus Election Code — Cited by petitioner as the provision vesting jurisdiction over the correction of votes in the Regional Trial Court; the Court implicitly rejected this argument by upholding the COMELEC's correction power.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., and Panganiban, JJ., concurred. Torres, Jr., J., took no part.