Carlos v.

Angeles (2000)

Facts: In the May 11, 1998 elections, Jose Carlos was proclaimed as the duly elected mayor
of Valenzuela over Antonio Serapio. Serapio filed an election protest challenging the results
and the case was assigned to Judge Angeles of the RTC of Caloocan (because of the
inhibition of all the judges of the RTC in Valenzuela). The final tally showed that Carlos won
over a margin of 17,007 votes. However, the trial court set aside the final tally of valid votes
because of its finding of significant badges of fraud. The trial court held that the fraud was
attributable to Carlos and it declared Serapio as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela City.

Issues: 1. W/N the SC has jurisdiction. 2. W/N the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion.

Held/Ratio: 1. YES. The SC has jurisdiction over the present petition. Both the Supreme
Court and Comelec (in aid of its appellate jurisdiction) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of trial courts of general
jurisdiction (RTC) in election cases involving elective municipal officials. The Court that takes
jurisdiction first shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the case. 2. YES. The trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
proclaiming Serapio the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela even without a majority of votes
cast in his favor. The trial court in its decision actually pronounced a failure of election by
disregarding and setting aside the results of the election. The trial court erred to the extent of
ousting itself of jurisdiction because the grounds for failure of election were not significant
and even nonexistent. More importantly, the commission of fraud cannot be attributed to
Carlos as there was no evidence on record that he had a hand in any of the irregularities that
Serapio averred. The court annuls and declares void the trial court decision. The case is
remanded to the trial court for decision. For recit purposes: The significant badges of fraud
are belied by the facts pointed out by the SC: a. that the keys turned over did not fit into the
padlocks of the ballot boxes: The mere inability of the keys to fit into the padlocks attached to
the ballot boxes does not affect the integrity of the ballots. b. that 7 ballot boxes did not
contain any ballot and 2 of the 7 did not contain any election returns: It is a standard
procedure of the Comelec to provide extra empty ballot boxes for the use of the Board of
Election Inspectors or the Board of Canvassers, in case of necessity. c. that some precincts
experienced various brownouts: Witnesses testified that the counting of votes proceeded
smoothly and no commotion or violence occurred during the brownout. d. that some of the
assigned watchers of Serapio were not in their posts: As long as notices were duly served to
the parties, the counting and canvassing of votes may validly proceed in the absence of
watchers. Even assuming that the TC was correct in holding that the final tally of valid votes
may be set aside because of the significant badges of fraud, the same would be tantamount
to a ruling that there was failure of election. In a petition to annul an election, two conditions
must be averred: (1) the illegality must affect more than 50% of the votes cast and (2) the
good votes can be distinguished from the bad ones. Neither of these conditions was present
in the case at bar.