G.R. No. 107854. July 16, 1993
DATU SUKARNO S. SAMAD, PETITIONER, VS. COMELEC AND BAI UNGGIE ABDULA, RESPONDENTS.
CRUZ, J.:
Before this Court are two consolidated petitions involving the
position of Mayor in the Municipality of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Petitioner Sukarno S. Samad and private
respondent Bai Unggie Abdula were among the contenders for this office in the
synchronized elections of May 11, 1992. Both were proclaimed mayor-elect by two different canvassing boards –
the private respondent, by the board headed by Abas A. Saga, on May 28, 1992,
and the petitioner, by the board headed by Mucado M. Pagayao, on May 29,
1992. Both went to the Commission on
Elections in separate petitions against each other.
In SPA 92-314, which was filed on June 1, 1992, Samad sought the
nullification of the proclamation made in favor of Abdula and the calling of a
special election in three precincts. In
SPC 92-421, which was filed on August 14, 1992, Abdula prayed that the
proclamation of Samad be nullified and that he be enjoined from assuming as
mayor of Kabuntalan. The two petitions
were consolidated and raffled to the First Division of the COMELEC.
On June 29, 1992, the COMELEC issued a resolution in SPA 92-314
directing its Law Department to: 1)
summon both election registrars Saga and Pagayao to appear before the
Commission; 2) conduct an investigation of the matter with a view to the
prosecution of any one found responsible for falsification of the election
documents; and 3) require Election Supervisor Carmencita Cabacungan to comment
on the petition.
On that same date, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2489
declaring the termination of all pre-proclamation cases except the 86 cases
named in the list annexed thereto. SPA
92-314 was not included in the list. (SPC 92-421 had not yet been filed at that time.)
On July 2, 1992, the petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court
of Cotabato City an action against the private respondent for quo warranto and
prohibition with preliminary injunction. This was docketed as SPL Civil Case 2938 in Branch 13.
Judge Emmanuel D. Badoy initially opined that he had no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition but he later changed this mind and
issued a temporary restraining order, converted into a writ of preliminary
injunction on August 14, 1992, directing private respondent Abdula to cease and
desist from exercising the powers and functions of the mayor of Kabuntalan and
enjoining all officials and entities to respect the proclamation of petitioner
Samad.[1]
On that same day, Abdula filed a petition with the Court of
Appeals, later docketed as CA-GR SP No. 28683, questioning the validity of the
order. On August 20, 1992, the court
issued a resolution enjoining its implementation.[2]
On November 4, 1992, after finding that both the conflicting
certificates of canvass and proclamation prepared by the Saga and Pagayao
boards of canvassers were defective, the First Division of the COMELEC denied
the consolidated petitions and directed the Office of the Executive Director to
constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the purpose of verifying which of
the two sets of statements of votes upon which the two different proclamation
documents were based was genuine, without prejudice to the resolution of the
prayer for special elections in Kabuntalan.[3]
On November 27, 1992, acting on Samad’s
motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc sustained its First
Division. It also declared that pending
implementation of the challenged resolution, it was the responsibility of the
Department of Interior and Local Government to designate an OIC-Mayor in the
Municipality of Kabuntalan.[4]
This declaration prompted Samad to file with this Court a
petition for certiorari with restraining order and
injunction. On December 3, 1992, we
issued a temporary restraining order commanding the COMELEC to cease and desist
from implementing the questioned resolutions.[5]
On December 9, 1992, the DILG issued a letter-directive
recognizing the petitioner as mayor of Kabuntalan, but on December 14, 1992, it
allegedly issued another letter, this time authorizing the private respondent
to continue serving as a hold-over mayor. Samad then came again to this Court in a petition for certiorari. This was referred to the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-GR SP No. 29942, and consolidated with CA-GR SP No. 28683.
On January 5, 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos designated
respondent Abdula as officer-in-charge of the Office of the Mayor of
Kabuntalan.[6]
Samad’s reaction was to file with this Court on February 8, 1993, a petition
questioning this designation. This was
docketed as G.R. No. 108642. On
February 18, 1993, we issued a restraining order: 1) directing respondents Executive Secretary Edelmiro Amante and
Presidential Legal Counsel Antonio Carpio to cease and desist from implementing
the questioned designation; and 2) restraining respondent Abdula from assuming
the position and functions as OIC-Mayor of Kabuntalan.[7]
G.R. No. 108642 and G.R. No. 107854 were also consolidated.
Samad later filed with the Court of Appeals a Manifestation that
he had no objection to the dismissal of CA-GR 29942, the same having no more
basis because the December 14, 1992 letter recognizing Abdula as hold-over
mayor was a forgery, as evidenced by the affidavit of Secretary Rafael Alunan.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the said case on
March 12, 1993. It further suspended
the resolution of CA-GR 28683 to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions
on these closely-related cases and in deference to the two restraining orders
issued by this Court in GR Nos. 107854 and 108642. At the same time, it issued a preliminary injunction restraining
the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City from conducting further proceedings
in SPL Civil Case No. 2938 (330).[8]
The issues raised by petitioner Samad in these consolidated
petitions are as follows:
G.R. No. 107854: Whether or not the COMELEC acted arbitrarily and in derogation of
existing laws and jurisprudence in: a)
directing the Executive Director to constitute a Special Board of Canvassers to
determine the winner in the mayoralty election, without prejudice to the
resolution of the other issue of whether or not to call a special election,
despite the fact that this case was deemed terminated in view of the COMELEC
Resolution No. 2489; and b) denying his motion for reconsideration instead of
dismissing both petitions and paving the way for a judicial determination of
the instant controversy by the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, subject
to the review of the COMELEC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 108642: Whether
or not, the President of the Philippines had jurisdiction and/or authority to
appoint the private respondent as OIC in the Office of the Mayor of Kabuntalan
in spite of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial
Court of Cotabato City which ordered the latter to cease and desist from
performing the functions of mayor of Kabuntalan, and enjoined officials and
entities to respect herein petitioner’s proclamation as the duly elected mayor
of the said municipality.
It is necessary first to determine whether jurisdiction over the
present controversy remained with the COMELEC or was vested in the Regional
Trial Court of Cotabato City upon the filing of the petition for quo
warranto.
The petitioner contends that SPA 92-314 was terminated by virtue
of Resolution No. 2489, as authorized by R.A. 7166, because it was not among
the 86 cases enumerated in the list annexed to the said resolution that, as
exceptions thereto, could continue to be heard by the COMELEC.
This contention is not well taken.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2489 reads in part as follows:
WHEREAS, the second paragraph of Sec. 16, Republic Act No. 7166,
provides:
All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of office involved and the
rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall “be deemed affirmed,
without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved
party. However, proceedings may continue
when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines
that the petition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the
proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued by the
Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.”
x x x
(3) All other
pre-proclamation cases which do not fall within the class of cases specified
under paragraphs (1) and (2) immediately preceding are deemed terminated by
operation of law. Hence, all the
rulings of boards of canvassers concerned are affirmed. Such affected boards of canvassers are
directed to reconvene forthwith, continue their respective canvass and proclaim
accordingly, if the proceedings were suspended by virtue of pending
pre-proclamation cases;
(4) All pending petitions
for disqualification, failure of elections or analogous cases, not being
pre-proclamation controversies and, therefore, not governed by Sections 17, 18,
19, 20, 21 and particularly, by the second paragraph of Sec. 16, Republic Act
No. 7166, shall remain active cases, the proceedings to continue beyond June
30, 1992, until the issues therein are finally resolved by the Commission; and
(5) The remaining
pre-proclamation cases, which on the basis of the evidence thus far presented,
appear meritorious and/or are subject of orders by the Supreme Court or this
Commission in petitions brought respectively to them thereby requiring the
proceedings therein to continue beyond 30 June 1992 until they are finally
resolved.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ordered that the proceedings in the
eighty six (86) cases appearing on the list annexed and made an integral part
hereof, be continued to be heard and disposed of by the Commission. (Rollo, p. 143-144).
SPA 92-314 was not only for the annulment of Abdula’s proclamation
but also for the holding of special elections in three precincts. It therefore fell under Section 4 of the
afore-quoted resolution.
Moreover, although not included in the list of cases that could
continue to be heard by the COMELEC, SPA 92-314 remained active because on June
29, 1992, the same day Resolution No. 2489 was issued, the COMELEC en banc,
after finding that there were two Certificates of Canvass and Proclamation and
two proclaimed mayors, issued another resolution requiring both Election
Registrars Saga and Pagayao to appear before it, and the Election Supervisor
Cabacungan to comment on the petition.
Even assuming that SPA 92-314 was a purely pre-proclamation case,
it could nevertheless continue beyond June 30, 1992, pursuant to Section 5 of
Resolution No. 2489, because it was the subject of the said order.
It should also be noted that upon Abdula’s motion, the COMELEC on
September 11, 1992, ordered the said case, then pending in the First Division,
to be consolidated with SPC 92-421 in the Second Division.
What was the effect upon the cases pending in the COMELEC of the
filing by Samad of the petition for quo warranto in the Regional Trial
Court of Cotabato City?
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a
petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a
pre-proclamation controversy,[9]
or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC
of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or
the validity of his proclamation.[10]
The reason is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an
election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative
thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another
proceeding.[11]
This procedure will prevent confusion and conflict of authority. Conformably, we have ruled in a number of
cases that after a proclamation has been made, a pre-proclamation case before
the COMELEC is no longer viable.[12]
The rule admits of exceptions, however, as where: 1) the board of canvassers was improperly
constituted;[13]
2) quo warranto was not the proper remedy;[14]
3) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an
election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation;[15]
4) the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was
expressly made without prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was
made ad cautelam;[16]
and 5) the proclamation was null and void.[17]
All the exceptions except the fourth apply here.
The Saga board which proclaimed the private respondent had been
illegally constituted. As held by the
COMELEC, the letter of request dated May 27, 1992, of the Municipal Treasure of
Kabuntalan did not serve as an official designation of Abbas Saga to take over
the canvassing allegedly abandoned by Mucado Pagayao, because Bernardita
Cabacungan, the Election Supervisor of Maguindanao, denied having signed her
name after the word “Approved.” She declared that it was Mucado
Pagayao whom she had instructed to continue the canvassing after the former
chairman had been relieved by her.
Moreover, quo warranto was not the proper remedy because
both the petitioner and the private respondent claimed to have assumed the
office of the mayor of Kabuntalan.[18]
In a quo warranto proceeding, the petitioner is not occupying the
position in dispute. Moreover, under
the Omnibus Election Code, quo warranto is proper only for the purpose
of questioning the election of a candidate on the ground of disloyalty or
ineligibility. Neither of these grounds
was invoked by Samad in SPL Civil Case 2938.
No less importantly, the case before the Regional Trial Court of
Cotabato City was not really one for quo warranto nor was it an election
protest.
A petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election
Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning
candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat
the respondent from office but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his
place.[19]
An election protest is a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and
counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the returns.[20]
It raises the question of who actually obtained the plurality of the legal
votes and therefore is entitled to hold the office.
Both petitions in the COMELEC and in the Regional Trial Court of
Cotabato City were directed at the illegality of the composition of the Saga
board and of the proclamation of the private respondent. This matter is within the jurisdiction of
the COMELEC under Sections 241, 242, and 243 of the Omnibus Election Code
providing as follows:
Sec. 241. Definition – A
pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting
the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate
or by any registered political party before the board or directly with the
Commission.
Sec. 242. Commission’s
exclusive jurisdiction of all proclamation controversies – The Commission shall
have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies.
It may motu propio or upon written petition, and
after due notice and hearing, order the partial or total suspension of the
proclamation of any candidate – elect or annul partially or totally any
proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in accordance
with the succeeding sections.
Sec. 243. Issues that may
be raised in pre-proclamation controversy – The following shall be proper
issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy.
a) Illegal composition or proceeding of the board
of canvassers;
x x x
The question of whether or not special elections should be called
in the three precincts is also cognizable by the COMELEC under the Omnibus
Election Code, thus:
Sec. 6. Failure of
election. – If, on account of force
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election in
any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, x x x and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the
election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition by any
interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or
continuation of the election not held on the date of the election but not later
than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect. (Omnibus Election Code)
Sec. 4. Postponement,
Failure of Election and Special Elections. – The postponement, declaration of failure of elections and the calling
of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Omnibus
Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en banc by a
majority of its members. (Republic Act
7166).
We hold therefore that the COMELEC retained jurisdiction over SPA
92-314 and SPC 92-421.
Turning now to the merits of the assailed resolutions, this Court
finds that the COMELEC should not have denied the consolidated petitions for
the annulment of the questioned proclamations. Having ascertained that the proclamation in favor of Abdula had been
made by a board constituted without proper authority, the COMELEC should have
declared such proclamation null and void, along with the certificate of canvass
and proclamation and the statements of votes prepared by that board.
But ironically enough, this ruling can only give cold comfort to
Samad. We find that his proclamation
does not fare any better because it is also null and void.
In its Report on the Status of Canvassing dated May 29, 1992 the
Pagayao board declared:
Please be informed that the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
Kabuntalan, Maguindanao had terminated the canvass of the 66 election returns
as of May 26, 1992 at around 3:00 P.M. out of 69 precincts.
As reported, 2 precincts did not function on election day and for 1
precinct, the election returns were all missing as follows:
BARANGAY PRECINCT REG.
VOTERS REMARKS
1. xxxxx 3-A 214 No
election
2. xxxxx 4-A 196 No
election
3. xxxxx 13 224 Election
returns missing
It may be stated that the canvass of the returns for the National
Office was finished by the previous Chairman of the Board, Election Registrar
Abdul Dimalen. We took over on May 23,
1992 upon the directive of Atty. Bernardita P. Cabacungan, OIC Provincial
Election Officer of Maguindanao and Chairman-designate of the board.
The new Board, canvassed the election returns for local
officials. Right after the tabulation
of votes but before we prepared the certificate of votes obtained by the local
candidates for the Municipal Offices there was a pressure exerted upon the
individual members of the Board to proclaim Bai Unggie Abdula who appear to be
winning by a margin of 153 votes over her closest rival Sukarno Samad.
The board held that it cannot proclaim because the result will be
affected by the two (2) precincts that did not function and one (1) precinct
the election returns of which were missing.
x x x
In view whereof, we are submitting this report without any
tabulation of votes showing the standing of each candidate and to inform the
Commission that the duly constituted Board of Canvassers has not proclaimed any
winner until ordered by the Commission on Elections.
In fact, no less than Samad himself averred in his petition with
the COMELEC:
4. That the proclamation was premature as there were still three
precincts which were not accounted for with a total number of 660 registered
voters (2 precincts failed to function while the ballot box of the other one
was declared missing by the Chairman and members of the Board of Election
Inspectors) x x x.
That the lead of respondent Bai Unggie D. Abdula over that of
petitioner is only about 153 votes which can be overcome by the numbers of
votes involved in the above-stated precincts.
It is settled that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and
cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation.[21]
All the votes cast in the election must be counted and all the returns
presented to the board must be considered as the disregard of some returns
would in effect disenfranchise the voters affected.[22]
A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all
the returns are considered.[23]
The canvass of the mayoralty election was incomplete because
there were still three precincts with a total of 660 registered voters that had
not sent in their returns. Precincts
3-A and 4-A reportedly did not function on election day, and the election
returns in Precinct No. 13 were missing.
In this situation, the COMELEC should determine whether there was
indeed a failure of election that would necessitate the calling of a special
election in the said precincts. Regarding the missing election returns in Precinct No. 13, Section 233
of the Omnibus Election Code mandates the board of canvassers to obtain them
from the corresponding boards of election inspectors. If these returns have been lost or destroyed, the board may, upon
prior authority of the Commission, resort to any of the authentic copies of
said election returns or a certified copy of said election returns issued by the
Commission. Any proclamation in
violation of this provision is null and void under Section 238 of the Code.
It is only when authorized by the COMELEC or when the missing
election returns will not affect the results of the election that the board can
terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of the
available returns. Precinct No. 13 had
224 registered voters and the margin between the petitioner and the private
respondent is allegedly 153 votes only. As the missing election returns of that precinct will affect the outcome
of the election, no proclamation can as yet be made.
The Pagayao board was aware of this and in fact declared in its
report that “it cannot proclaim because the result will be affected by the
two (2) precincts that did not function and the one (1) precinct, the election
returns of which were missing.” Yet, on May 29, 1992, the same day the
report was made, the Pagayao board proceeded to proclaim petitioner Samad as
mayor-elect over Abdula and the other candidates. Undoubtedly, the said proclamation produced no legal effect
whatsoever.
It is noteworthy that the COMELEC found the Certificate of
Canvass and Proclamation dated May 29, 1992 to be not credible because it was
inconsistent with the board’s “Report on the Status of Canvassing,”
also dated May 29, 1992, that it had not yet proclaimed the winner. Also, while Pagayao declared in his sworn
statement that the proclamation was held at the Regional Office of Cotabato
City, the certificate stated that the venue was PC Hill, Cotabato City.
It was these uncertainties about the validity of the certificate
of canvass that prompted the COMELEC to constitute a Special Board of
Canvassers to ascertain the winner in the mayoralty race. This action is in our view not whimsical or
arbitrary and so cannot be interfered with by this Court.
We must also reject the contention that the private respondent is
now estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of
Cotabato City over SPL Civil Case No. 2938. We find that in her Answer with Motion to Dismiss dated July 7, 1992,
Abdula did in fact argue that the said court had no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case.
Inasmuch as it is the COMELEC that has exclusive jurisdiction
over the present controversy, the restraining order and the writ of Preliminary
injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City are void ab
initio. Consequently, President
Ramos did not act improperly when he designated the private respondent as
OIC-Mayor of Kabuntalan pending final resolution of the dispute. The designation was in accordance with the
case of Sanchez v. Commission on Election,[24]
where this Court recognized the authority of the President of the Philippines
to appoint an officer-in-charge of the office of mayor of San Fernando,
Pampanga, pending settlement of the controversy over the position.
The private respondent accuses the petitioner of forum-shopping
for having filed a quo warranto case with the Regional Trial Court of
Cotabato City although the COMELEC continued to have jurisdiction over the
controversy. It is also asserted that
the petitions filed by Samad with this Court in G.R. Nos. L-108642 and L-107854
and with the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP. Nos. 28683 and 29942 involve the
very same issue of jurisdiction.
On the other hand, Samad contends that it is the private
respondent who is guilty of forum-shopping because she filed a petition praying
for the affirmance of her proclamation and the nullification of the petitioner’s
when that same prayer, which was contained in her comment in SPA 92-314, was
not granted in that case.
This Court has held in a long line of decisions that “there
is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in
another. The principle applies not only
with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with
litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is
pending, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an
unfavorable court ruling.”[25]
We find that the petitioner filed with the lower court a petition
for quo warranto because he believed that SPC 92-314 had been terminated
under COMELEC Resolution 2489. He
therefore cannot be faulted for going to the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato
City to continue his challenge to Abdula’s proclamation. Samad was obviously acting pursuant to
Section 16 of RA 7166, providing that the termination of the pre-proclamation
cases is without prejudice to the filing by the aggrieved party of a regular
election protest.
The second ground raised by the private respondent is also
untenable.
In CA-GR. SP No. 28683, the petitioner impugned the validity of
the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the lower court on August 14,
1992, whereas in CA-GR. SP No. 29942, he questioned the alleged appointment
dated December 14, 1992 of the private respondent as hold-over mayor of
Kabuntalan. On the other hand, G.R.
Nos. 107854 and 108642 were petitions assailing the resolutions of the COMELEC
dated November 4, 1992 and November 27, 1992, and the appointment made by the
President on January 5, 1993 in favor of the private respondent as OIC-Mayor of
the said municipality.
The causes of action, subject matter, and issues raised in these
four petitions are not identical. There
is forum-shopping only where the actions involve the same transactions and the
same essential facts and circumstances.[26]
Neither is the private respondent guilty of the same charge. The fact that she prayed for the affirmance
of her proclamation and the nullification of that of petitioner Samad does not
make Abdula guilty of forum-shopping. The reason is that she sought this relief from one and the same forum,
to wit, the COMELEC. Moreover, at the
time she filed her petition in SPC 92-421, no adverse ruling or opinion had as
yet been rendered by the COMELEC on these issues in SPA 92-314.
We defer ruling on the motion to cite the respondent in contempt
pending receipt of her comment thereon. In the meantime, so as not to unduly delay resolution of this
controversy and ascertainment of the winner in the election for mayor of
Kabuntalan, Maguindanao, we hereby promulgate this decision on the merits of
the two petitions.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1) allowing the private respondent to continue
discharging the duties and functions as OIC-Mayor of Kabuntalan;
2) ordering the Commission on Elections to:
a) declare the proclamation of both the
petitioner and the private respondent null and void;
b) resolve with dispatch the question of
whether or not a special election should be called in the precincts affected;
c) proceed with the creation of a Special Board
of Canvassers to proclaim, after proper canvass, the mayor-elect of Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao; and
3) ordering the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato
City, Branch 13, to dismiss SPL Civil Case 2938.
The temporary restraining orders dated December 3, 1992, and
February 18, 1993, are LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 53 (G.R. No. 107854).
[2]
Rollo, p. 190 (G.R. No. 108642).
[3]
Rollo, p. 16 (G.R. No. 107854).
[4]
Ibid, p. 23.
[5]
Id., p. 100.
[6]
id., p. 6.
[7]
id., p. 206.
[8]
Rollo, p. 184 (G.R. No. 108642).
[9]
Sevilleja v. COMELEC, 107 SCRA 141; Mogueis, Jr. v. COMELEC, 104
SCRA 576; Filart v. COMELEC, 53 SCRA 457.
[10]
Reyes v. Reyes, 22 SCRA 485; Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus Election
Code, 1992 Ed., p. 337.
[11]
Sevilleja v. COMELEC, supra; Mogueis v. COMELEC, supra;
Acain and Malimit v. Board of Canvassers of Carmen, Agusan, et al.,
108 Phil. 165.
[12]
Casimiro v. COMELEC, 171 SCRA 468; Salvacion v. COMELEC, 170 SCRA
513; Padilla v. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424.
[13]
Pacis v. COMELEC, 22 SCRA 340.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Id.
[16]
Agbayani v. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 484.
[17]
Mutuc v. COMELEC, 22 SCRA 662.
[18]
Pacis v. COMELEC, supra.
[19]
Section 253, Omnibus Election Code; Topacio v. Paredes, 23 Phil. 238.
[20]
Topacio v. Paredes, supra.
[21]
Mutuc v. COMELEC, supra citing Demafiles v.
COMELEC, et al., 21 SCRA 1462; Abes v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 1252; and
Abelante v. Relato, 94 Phil. 8.
[22]
Mutuc v. COMELEC, supra citing Estrada v. Navarro,
21 SCRA 1514.
[23]
Agbayani v. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 484; Duremdes v. COMELEC, 178 SCRA
748.
[24] 114 SCRA 454.
[25]
Multinational Village Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
203 SCRA 104; Solid Manila Corp. v. Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc., 195 SCRA
748; New Pangasinan Review, Inc., v. NLRC, 196 SCRA 56; Earth Minerals
Exploration, Inc. v. Macaraig, Jr., 194 SCRA 1.
[26]
GSIS v. Sandiganbayan, 191 SCRA 644 citing Palm Avenue Realty
Development Corp. v. PCGG, 15 SCRA 579.