YUSOPH PAPANDAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BUADIPUSO BUNTONG, LANAO DEL SUR AND ABDUL GANI ACOON, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court in relation to Section 7, Article IX of the
Constitution, to set aside the en banc Resolution dated October
23, 1992 of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC), which affirmed the Resolution dated September 18, 1992 of
the COMELEC’s First Division in Cases
Nos. SPC 92-182, SPC 92-341 and SPC 92-358. The Resolution of the First Division
dismissed the three special cases filed by petitioner.

We dismiss the petition.

I

Petitioner was one of the candidates for the mayoralty of the
Municipality of Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur in the May 11, 1992 elections.

On May 25, 1992, petitioner filed with the COMELEC the Urgent
Omnibus Motion docketed as SPC No. 92-182 praying: (a) that the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct No. 23-A-1
be directed to complete its election return by including the 32 ballots which
did not bear the signatures at the back thereof of the Chairman of the Board of
Election Inspectors; and (b) that the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct
No. 40-A-1 be directed to complete its election return by including seven
ballots which also did not bear the signature of the Chairman. Petitioner further prayed that the
respondent Board of Canvassers be directed: (a) to include in the canvass the election returns of: (i) Precincts Nos. 23-A-1 and 40-A-1, (ii)
Precinct No. 10-A, which return
was partially burned by accident but whose entries remain legible and (iii)
Precinct No. 10-A-1, which return contained two pages marked number
“1” but otherwise did not show any sign of tampering as to
affect its genuineness and due execution; and thereafter (b) to proclaim the winning candidate for mayor.

On May 26, 1992, the
COMELEC en banc granted all of the requests of petitioner
in Minute Resolution No. 92-1621. They
also directed respondent Board of Canvassers “to immediately comply
therewith and to complete the canvass by including the election returns of
Precincts Nos. 10-A and 10-A-1 and the completed election returns of Precincts
Nos. 23-A-1 and 40-A-1 and thereafter, to proclaim the winning candidates”
(Rollo, p. 51).

Respondent Board of Canvassers included in the canvass, the
election returns of Precincts Nos. 10-A and 10-A-1 as directed by the COMELEC.

In the case of Precinct No. 40-A-1 the Board of Election
Inspectors completed the Election Return No. 660241, which showed that petitioner
got 45 votes while private respondent got 19 votes. When the said return was submitted to the respondent Board of
Canvassers for the canvassing, private respondent verbally moved for its
exclusion even before its envelope could be opened to retrieve the election
return. He assailed the authenticity of
the election return, claiming that it was not submitted by the assigned poll
clerk. The oral objection was followed
by a written petition to exclude the election return and a written offer of
evidence. No written petition for the
inclusion of the election return was filed.

After considering the evidence offered for the exclusion of
Election Return No. 660241, respondent Board of Canvassers ruled that it could
not open the envelope containing said election return. This is because the Board of Election
Inspectors of Precinct No. 40-A-1 had not complied with the order of the
COMELEC for it to continue their counting and appreciation of the seven
unsigned ballots and then to submit to respondent Board of Canvassers their
accomplished election return (Rollo, pp. 54-55).

On June 11, 1992, petitioner appealed the ruling of respondent
Board of Canvassers to the COMELEC. The
appeal, docketed as SPC No. 92-341, averred that the Board of Election
Inspectors of Precinct No. 40-A-1 had not complied with the COMELEC Resolution
No. 92-1621 directing it to complete its election return by reading and
appreciating the seven, unsigned ballots and to submit the election return to
the respondent Board of Canvassers. Petitioner also argued that an election return could only be questioned
and objected to after it was retrieved from the envelope and presented to the
Board of Canvassers for inclusion or exclusion.

Private respondent filed
an omnibus motion and claimed that the appreciation of the seven questioned
ballots could no longer affect the result of the election. He claimed that even if the ballots were to
be added to the total votes obtained by petitioner, private respondent would
still be ahead by 12 votes.

On June 16, 1992, petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC
docketed as SPC No. 92-358, praying for the nullification of the proclamation
of private respondent as the elected Mayor of Buadipuso Buntong, for the
reconvening of the respondent Board of Canvassers to make a new canvass by
including therein the election return of Precinct No. 40-­A-1; and the
proclamation of the winning candidate (Rollo, pp. 70-75).

On the same day, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 92-1805, which directed
respondent Board of Canvassers to determine whether the seven questioned
ballots of Precinct No. 40-A-1 would materially affect the results of the
election in the municipality. Accordingly, if the ballots would be material, respondent Board of
Canvassers was directed to reconvene
the Board of Election Inspectors for the completion of the election return;
otherwise, the proclamation of the winners should be based on the canvass of
the “other precincts and the incomplete returns, excluding the seven
ballots, from precinct 40-A-1” (Rollo, p. 64).

On August 6, 1992, the COMELEC
en banc heard
Case No. SPC 92-341 and ordered, upon motion of petitioner, its consolidation
with Cases Nos. SPC Nos. 92-182 and 92-358, since they involved the same
parties and practically the same issues. Subsequently, the COMELEC en banc referred the three
cases to the First Division.

On September 18, 1992,
the First Division of the COMELEC issued a resolution dismissing the three
cases, to wit:

“1. SPC Case No.
92-182 is considered dismissed when the Commission En Banc promulgated Minute
Resolution No. 92-1621 dated May 26, 1992 that granted the prayer made by the
petitioner;

2. SPC Case No. 92-341 was also
dismissed by the Honorable commission when it affirmed the ruling of the Board
(MBC) under Minute Resolution No. 92-1805 dated June 11, 1992;

3. SPC Case No. 92-358 is also among those dismissed by Comelec Resolution
No. 2489 dated June 29, 1992;

4. Petitioner’s motion and prayer for the conduct of the special election
in Precincts 23-A­-1 and 40-A-1 has no legal and factual basis;

5. The subsequent cases filed: – SPC No. 92-­341 and SPC No. 92-358
are in effect Motions for Reconsiderations of the previous rulings of the
commission which is a prohibited pleading
under Sec. 1, Rule 13 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the proclamation of the winning candidate for Mayor
by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of the Municipality of Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur is
hereby SUSTAINED” (Rollo, pp. 27-28).

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the resolution, and
on October 23, 1992 the COMELEC en banc affirmed
the resolution.

II

The instant petition seeks to annul the Resolutions of the
COMELEC (First Division) dated September 18, 1992 and the COMELEC en banc dated October 23, 1992.

This petition must fail.

We see no reason to depart
from the rulings of the COMELEC. Indeed, SPC No. 92-182 was considered terminated when the COMELEC
granted petitioner’s prayer in Resolution No. 92-1621 (Rollo, p. 51). The prayer sought the completion of the
election returns of three precincts, including that of Precinct No. 40-A-1.

On the other hand, SPC 92-341, which was petitioner’s appeal on
the ruling of respondent Board of Canvassers, was also deemed terminated when
the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No.
92-1805 (Rollo, p. 64). The ruling of
respondent Board of Canvassers, seeking authority from the COMELEC regarding
the appreciation of the seven questioned ballots was resolved by directing the
respondent Board of Canvassers “to
appreciate” the materiality of the ballots.

In compliance with the aforementioned resolution, the respondent
Board of Canvassers issued a Report of Implementation, which stated that the
seven ballots could “not affect the result of the Election for the
Candidates for office of the Municipal Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilors of
Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur” (Rollo, p. 135).

Finally, SPC No. 92-358 cannot prosper for lack of
jurisdiction. The action is actually an
election contest, the jurisdiction of which is vested in the regular courts
(Section 1, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure).

It is beyond doubt that SPC No. 92-341 and SPC No. 92-­358 are in
the guise of a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC’s Resolution No.
92-180, which allowed the re­convening of the Board of Election Inspectors of
Precinct No. 40-A-1 only if the seven questioned ballots would materially
affect the results of the election. Both actions seek the canvassing of the election return of Precinct No.
40-A-1. Under Section 1 of Rule 13 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a motion
for reconsideration of an en banc ruling is among the
prohibited pleadings.

It must be noted that the election return relied on by petitioner
is dubious. He insists on opening the
sealed envelope allegedly containing the election return of Precinct No. 40-A-1
and submitted by a self-appointed clerk. The fact that the election return was submitted by a person other than
the assigned poll clerk is not controverted by petitioner.

Moreover, there is no truth to petitioner’s allegation that the
entire precinct was disenfranchised. There was a proper appreciation of the votes in Precinct No. 40-A-1,
exclusive of the seven ballots. It must
be borne in mind that the issue was the completion of the election return,
particularly the appreciation of the seven questioned ballots. For this particular precinct, petitioner was
already credited 23 votes as against private respondent’s 19 votes (See Rollo,
p. 103).

At any rate, we see no reason to deviate from the ruling of the
COMELEC. The issues raised are factual
and petitioner failed to raise substantial issues which would merit a reversal
of the ruling.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.