RODOLFO Q. PASION, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MAGNO MANIAGO AND MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF STA. ANA, PAMPANGA, RESPONDENTS.

In the local elections of January 30, 1980, petitioner and
private respondent were the official candidates of the Nacionalista Party and
the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, respectively, for the Office of the Municipal
Mayor of Sta. Ana, Pampanga.

In the evening of January 30, 1980, after the voting and counting
of votes in the different voting centers, the Municipal Board of Canvass­ers
met for the purpose of canvassing the election returns submitted by the Citizen
Election Committees (CECs).  There were
thirty-one (31) voting centers,
but only twenty-eight (28) were canvassed by the Board, as the three (3)
remaining returns from the three (3) voting centers of Barangay Sta. Maria had
not been submitted.  Thus, the Board sus­pended
the canvassing.  Later, the CECs from the
said three (3) voting centers submitted a certification that “all x x x
election paraphernalias, except the ballot boxes and list of registered voters
were lost and padlocked (sic).” In short, there were no election returns
from the said three (3) voting
centers that could be found and included in the canvass.  From the
result of the canvass of the available election returns from the twenty-eight (28) voting centers,
it was shown that private respond­ent garnered 3,377 votes against petitioner’s
2,779 votes or a difference of 598 votes in favor of the former.

On February 1, 1980, petitioner filed a letter-petition with the
COMELEC to restrain the proclamation of private respondent alleging that three
(3) ballot boxes in three (3) barrios, which are his political bailiwicks, were
seized at gunpoint by the followers of private res­pondent.  On the same day, the COMELEC, without notice
to private respondent and hearing, issued Resolution No. 8638 which suspended
the proclamation of private respondent as Mayor-elect of Sta. Ana, Pampanga,
and treated the petition as a pre-proclamation petition.  Private respondent filed his answer on
February 5, 1980.  On February 8,1980,
the COMELEC issued the questioned Resolution No. 8976 dis­missing the
pre-proclamation petition:

“x x x Considering the answer filed by said private respondent
Magno Maniago, showing that said 3 ballot boxes are in the official custody of
the Chief of Police of Sta. Ana as trustee of the Election Registrar of Sta.
Ana, and considering further that the grounds alleged in said petition are
properly grounds for an election protest, the Commission resolved to dismiss,
as it hereby dismisses, the said petition for lack of merit, and hereby lifts
its restraining order of Feb­ruary 1, 1980, and directs the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Sta. Ana, Pampanga to proceed with and terminate its canvass and
proclaim the winners for municipal offices therein immediately.

“Let the Law Department cause the immediate implementation of,
and compliance with, the Resolution.”^[1]

On February 9, 1980, there being no election returns to canvass
from the three (3) voting centers of Barangay Sta. Maria, the Board terminated
the canvass and proclaimed, on the basis of the elec­tion returns from the
twenty-eight (28) voting centers, private respond­ent as the duly elected Mayor
of Sta. Ana, Pampanga.

On February 18, 1980, petitioner filed with the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga an election protest docketed as Election Protest No. 4
(5700), alleging therein substantially the same grounds as those alleged by him
in the pre-proclamation petition.  In due
time, private respondent filed his answer to the complaint.  However, said election protest was suspended
by the court pending the outcome of the election case in the COMELEC.

On February 19, 1980, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a
petition dated February 14, 1980 for the annulment of the proclamation of
private respondent.  The petition was
later treated as a motion for the reconsideration of Resolution No. 8976.  Private respondent moved to dismiss the
petition for the annulment of his proclamation alleging, among others, that he
had already taken his oath of office as mayor of Sta. Ana, Pampanga on March 3,
1980 and had immediately assumed office and discharged and continues to
discharge the official functions and duties pertaining to that office.  After several more pleadings were filed, and
the case was heard on March 31, 1980 and April 24, 1980, the COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 9802 on May 28, 1980 denying the petition which was earlier
treated as motion for reconsideration without prejudice to petitioner’s
prosecution of his election protest.^[2]
The said resolution made final and permanent the proc­lamation of private
respondent.

In seeking the annulment of Resolution Nos. 8976 and 9802,
petitioner contends that COMELEC acted without or in excess of juris­diction or
with grave abuse of discretion in (1) lifting the restraining order which
suspended the proclamation of private respondent; and (2) in denying his motion
for reconsideration and in making final and permanent the proclamation of
private respondent.

In support of the foregoing, petitioner claims that Resolution
No. 8976 was issued without affording him time and opportunity to file a reply
to private respondent’s answer.  What is
even worse, accord­ing to him was that he was not served with a copy of the
Resolution No. 9802, such that he was unable to seek immediate relief from this
Court to stop the proclamation of private respondent.  Petitioner charges that the proclamation was
illegal, alleging that the same was based on incomplete returns.  He claims that the edge of 593 votes of
private respondent was a result of the substitution of ballots and tam­pering
of election returns in the Municipal Building of Sta. Ana on the night of
January 30, 1980.

Private respondent and the Solicitor General raise substantially
the same arguments in their comments on the petition.  They contend that the COMELEC did not act
precipitately in issuing Resolution No. 8976 for it took the COMELEC three (3)
days to lift the TRO, unlike in the order suspending the proclamation which was
issued without delay and on the very day the letter-petition was filed, and
without affording private respondent the opportunity to be heard, contrary to
what is provided in Section 175 that a proclamation may be suspended or
annulled only after notice and hearing. 
As regards the missing election returns, they contend that there were no
election returns from the questioned three (3) precincts to speak of, since
there were no elect­ion returns accomplished by the CECs as they had no
opportunity to do so, in view of the unfortunate arrival of masked men who were
intimi­dating and threatening people inside the voting centers, causing the
people therein, including the CECs members to scamper away.

The petition must be dismissed. 
It is very apparent from the petition-letter that the grounds relied
upon by petitioners in seeking relief from the COMELEC are proper grounds for
election protest.  Petitioner premised
his petition, to quote from Resolution No. 9802 of the COMELEC, on seizure of
ballot boxes at gunpoint; intimidation of voters and forced opening and
examination of ballots; substitution of ballots; and tampering of election
returns.  These are the same grounds
alleged in the election protest filed in the Court of First Ins­tance of
Pampanga.  The cases of Villegas vs.
COMELEC^[3]
and Laguda vs. COMELEC^[4]
find application in the disposition of this case.  In the early case of Villegas v. COMELEC,
where massive fraud and violations of certain provisions of the Election Code
allegedly committed during the elections were denounced in this Court, the
Court through Mr. Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando dismissed the petition, it
appearing therein that the grounds set forth in the complaint before the
COMELEC are proper for election protest. 
The Court pointed out, that at any rate petitioner would not be left
without remedy “for the opportunity for him to prove such a wholesale
allegation of massive fraud and violations of Election Code is still
there.”^[5]
Indeed, herein petitioner could still avail himself of the election protest
where he could ventilate his grievance and be provided the full opportunity to
present all relevant evidence in a full dress hearing in accordance with due
process, unlike in the COMELEC where the proceedings are sum­mary in
nature.  As was aptly said in Laguda v.
COMELEC, “to pass on such a complex matter in a summary proceedings would
be to run the risk that the decision arrived at would not reflect the realities
of this situation.”

Moreover, such course of action would be in keeping with the
ruling first enunciated in Venezuela v. COMELEC^[6]
and lately in Arcenas v. COMELEC^[7]
that “after an election duly held and a proc­lamation thereafter made of
the winning candidate, a pre-proclamation controversy should no longer be
viable.”

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
hereby DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., filed a brief
concurrence.

Makasiar, J., in the result.

Aquino, J., no part.

Abad Santos, J., dissenting
opinion.

^[1]
p. 49, Rollo.

^[2]
p. 256, Id.

^[3]
G.R. No. 52563, September 4, 1980.

^[4]
G.R. No. 53747, February 20, 1981.

^[5]
Villegas v. COMELEC, supra.

^[6]
G.R. No. 53532, July 25, 1980.

^[7]
G.R. No. 54039, Nov. 28, 1980;
see also Potencion v. COMELEC G.R. No. 52527, September 4, 1980.

170
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}