RODERICO VILLAROYA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BENEDICTA B. ROA AND CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, RESPONDENTS.

Villaroya versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus brought by Roderico Villaroya against the Commission on Elections, Benedicta Roa, and the City Board of Canvassers of Cagayan de Oro. Villaroya asks the Supreme Court to annul the Commission's order directing the City Board of Canvassers to retrieve the election return of one precinct from the ballot box and verify it against the statement of votes, and to stop Roa from assuming the congressional seat. The case matters because it draws the boundary between a proper pre-proclamation controversy and a full election protest, and it tells us how far the Commission's constitutional power reaches when a clerical error in the statement of votes is not apparent on the face of the returns.

Procedural History

After the May 1987 elections, the City Board of Canvassers tabulated the statement of votes from 598 precincts and reported Villaroya ahead of Roa by 26 votes, but did not proclaim him because of the protest of Roa's lawyers. Roa filed a petition with the Commission on Elections contesting the returns of several precincts, and the Commission telegraphed the Board to suspend any proclamation. Roa then filed a protest and an amended protest with the City Board of Canvassers over the tabulation in one voting center, and when the Board failed to convene and act, she filed a supplemental petition directly with the Commission. The Second Division of the Commission issued an order directing the Board to reconvene, verify the election return of the precinct, and proclaim the winner. Villaroya moved for reconsideration before the Commission en banc, which denied his motion and constituted a new City Board of Canvassers to verify the return and complete the canvass. The new Board verified the return, found that Roa received 111 votes and not 54, and proclaimed her with a margin of 31 votes. Villaroya then filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, which issued temporary restraining orders and later heard the parties.

Facts

Villaroya and Roa were congressional candidates in Cagayan de Oro City in the May 11, 1987 elections. The City Board of Canvassers tabulated the statement of votes from 598 precincts, finished on May 16, 1987, and reported Villaroya with 38,222 votes and Roa with 38,196 votes, a plurality of 26 votes for Villaroya. Because of the protest of Roa's lawyers, Villaroya was not proclaimed.

Roa requested a copy of the Statement of Votes, which the Board furnished on May 21, 1987. Only then did she discover that for voting center 302-A in Barangay Macalalad, the election return showed 111 votes for her and 35 for Villaroya, but the statement of votes credited her with only 54 votes, a loss of 57 votes. She filed a protest and an amended protest with the City Board of Canvassers on May 22 and 23, 1987, but the Board never convened to act on them because its chairman had absented herself. Roa then went directly to the Commission on Elections through a supplemental petition, praying for correction of the statement of votes and for her proclamation.

The Commission en banc upheld its Second Division, ruling that the protest was filed seasonably because the discrepancy was not apparent on the face of the returns and was discovered only upon receipt of the statement of votes. A new Board was constituted, which retrieved the election return from the ballot box, verified that Roa obtained 111 votes, and proclaimed her the winner by 31 votes. Villaroya alleged irregularities in the proceedings of the new Board, including the breaking of padlocks and disregard of a telegram to suspend, and asked the Court to annul the proclamation and order a recount.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections may, as a pre-proclamation controversy, order the verification of an election return against the statement of votes to correct a clerical error in the tabulation, even if the protestant raised no objection before the Board of Canvassers during the canvassing.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to Roa's petition and supplemental petition filed directly with it.
• Whether or not the proclamation of Roa by the new Board of Canvassers was valid despite the alleged disregard of the Commission's order to suspend.
• Whether or not Villaroya is entitled to the examination of the returns in 24 other precincts or a recount of all 598 precincts.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Article IX of the 1986 Constitution provides:

(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. (2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.

This grant of power is the source of the Commission's authority to inquire into the correctness of the canvass and to order the correction of a clerical error in the statement of votes so that the true will of the electorate is ascertained.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the Commission. The question was not the correctness of the election returns but of the statement of votes taken from them by the City Board of Canvassers. The error was not apparent on the face of the returns and was discovered by Roa only on May 21, 1987, when she received the copy she had requested. She wasted no time in filing her protest and amended protest with the Board, which never met to consider them. Since the old Board was not available, she went directly to the Commission. The Court held that the Commission has ample power to see to it that elections are held in a clean and orderly manner, may decide all questions affecting elections, and has original jurisdiction over all matters relating to election returns, including the verification of the number of votes received by opposing candidates as compared to the statement of votes. Such a clerical error in the statement of votes can be ordered corrected by the Commission.

On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. It was no fault of Roa that she or her representatives failed to file a timely protest during the canvassing, since the error was not apparent on its face and was not noticed by her watchers. The election inspectors attested under oath that Roa actually received 111 votes in the precinct, corroborated by the certificate of votes issued to her watchers. Given this clear evidence of discrepancy, it was the duty of the Commission to see to it that the matter should be verified from the election return as a pre-proclamation controversy. It could not wash its hands by asking Roa to bring the matter to the electoral tribunal as an election protest.

On the third issue, the Court found no positive evidence that the members of the Board defied the order to suspend. The telegram was received for transmission only at 5:20 in the afternoon of September 6, 1987, after the verification had been made from 11:00 in the morning to 12:50 noon, and after Roa was proclaimed at 4:00 in the afternoon and took her oath at 4:40. As to the alleged refusal to entertain a telephone call, there was no telephone in the session hall where the canvassing was undertaken.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Villaroya's plea for examination of the returns in 24 other precincts could not be given due course, as he failed to demonstrate a similar discrepancy or error between the statement of votes and the corresponding election returns in those precincts. Neither could the Court consider his plea for a recount of all 598 precincts. If at all, his remedy is an election protest in the House Electoral Tribunal.

Doctrine

The Commission on Elections has the power to investigate and act on the propriety or legality of the canvass of election returns made by a board of canvassers. When the Commission is convinced that the election returns in the hands of the board do not constitute the proper basis for ascertaining the true result, it is its duty to order that the proper basis for the canvass is obtained or made available. A clerical error in the statement of votes that is not apparent on the face of the election returns may be corrected by the Commission as a pre-proclamation controversy, even if no objection was raised before the Board of Canvassers during the canvassing, provided the protestant acted promptly upon discovery of the discrepancy. The Commission's authority flows from its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and its original jurisdiction over all matters relating to election returns. A candidate who seeks to go beyond the verified discrepancy and challenge the returns in other precincts must do so in a proper election protest before the electoral tribunal.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, the restraining orders were dissolved effective immediately, and the dismissal was declared immediately executory, leaving Roa's proclamation standing.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that the Commission on Elections may correct a clerical error in the statement of votes as a pre-proclamation controversy when the error is not apparent on the face of the election returns and the protestant acts promptly upon discovery. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a pre-proclamation controversy and an election protest, and the scope of the Commission's constitutional power over election returns.