MillavBalmores Laxa

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 406 23/08/2019, 10*00 PM
VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 679

Milla vs. Balmores-Laxa
*
G.R. No. 151216. July 18, 2003.
MANUEL MILLA, petitioner, vs. REGINA BALMORES-

LAXA, respondent.
Election Law; Pre-Proclamation Controversies; Statement of

Votes; If a candidateÊs proclamation is based on a Statement of Votes
which contains erroneous entries, it is null and void·it is no
proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidateÊs assumption of
office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to annul the
proclamation.·The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the
Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the
statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation. If a
candidateÊs proclamation is based on a Statement of Votes which
contains erroneous entries, it is null and void. It is no proclamation
at all and the proclaimed candidateÊs assumption of office cannot
deprive the COMELEC of the power to annul the proclamation.
Same; Same; Same; The COMELEC could suspend its own
Rules of Procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate.·In
the case at bar, as the Statement of Votes contained erroneous
entries, the COMELEC rightfully assumed jurisdiction over
respondentÊs petition for the correction thereof and declaration of
nullity of petitionerÊs proclamation. While our election laws are
silent when such and similar petitions may be filed directly with the
COMELEC, the above-quoted Section 5, Rule 27 of the Rules of
Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five (5) days following the
date of proclamation. The COMELEC, however, could suspend its
own Rules of Procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate.
For adherence to technicality that would put a stamp on a palpably
void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the
peopleÊs will, cannot be countenanced.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cbec2369b816f1b93003600fb002c009e/p/APA872/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
Same; Same; Jurisdiction; COMELEC En Banc and Divisions;

A preproclamation controversy should first be heard and decided by
a division of the COMELEC and then by the En Banc if a motion for
reconsideration or the decision of the division is filed; Where the
COMELEC en banc acted on a petition for correction of erroneous
entries in the Statement of Votes, a pre-proclamation controversy,
without said petition having been first passed upon by a division, it
acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and is
thus null and void.·As the petition then of respondent involves a
pre-proclamation controversy, following Sec. 3 of Art. IX-C of the
1987 Constitution which provides: Sec. 3. The Commission on
Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate
its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election
cases,
_______________
* EN BANC.
680
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election

cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by
the Commission en banc.(Emphasis and italics supplied) it
should have first been heard and decided by a division of the
COMELEC, and then by the En Banc if a motion for
reconsideration or the decision of the division were filed. Since, as
reflected above, the COMELEC sitting en banc acted on
respondentÊs petition which was not first passed upon by a division,
it acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The
assailed Resolution of the COMELEC dated December 18, 2001 is
thus null and void and it is in this light that the present petition is
GRANTED. This leaves it unnecessary to pass on petitionerÊs
second assigned error.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Manuel V. Mendoza for petitioner.
Cesar Bernard Coloma for respondent.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
The petition at bar involves the power of the Commission

on Elections (COMELEC) to annul the proclamation, due to
an alleged error in the tabulation of the Statement of Votes,
of a winning candidate for municipal councilor who had
taken his oath and assumed office as such.
Petitioner Manuel Milla and respondent Regina
Balmores-Laxa were candidates for1 councilor of Gerona,
Tarlac in the May 14, 2001 elections.
On May 18, 2001, petitioner was proclaimed as the
eighth winning candidate by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers (BOC) based 2
on the Statement of Votes and the
Certificate of Canvass showing the votes obtained by each
candidate as follows:
Daisy Mamba 14,558

Edwin Yamoyam 12,424
Antonio Perez, Jr. 11,607
Orlando Ines 9,764
Raul Cruz 9,724
_______________
1 Rollo at pp. 5-6.

2 Id., at pp. 6-7.
681
VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 681

Francisco de Leon 9,390
Ricardo Parazo 8,781

Manuel Milla 8,052
Regina Balmores-Laxa 8,006
3
Pastora M. Cucuin 7,669
One month after petitionerÊs proclamationor

4
on June 18,
2001, respondent filed a petition with the COMELEC
against petitioner and the BOC for „correction of entries in
[the] Statement of Votes . . . based on 5
fraud and
irregularities in [the] canvassing of votes.‰ The petition,
which was docketed as SPC No. 01-311, alleged that the
entries for four precincts in the Statement of Votes did not
correspond to the election returns for the respective
precincts, to wit:
[Manuel Milla and the Municipal Board of Canvassers], by

confederating, aiding and helping one another violating Sections
223, 230 and 231 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
(B.P. 881) and Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of
1987[)], padded respondent Manuel MillaÊs votes by THREE
HUNDRED FIFTY (350) VOTES by inserting the number „1‰ figure
before the actual votes in three precincts and converting „1‰ into „6‰
in one precinct illustrated as follows:
6 7
Precinct No. Actual votes (ER) Padded votes (SOV)
71A 32 132
30[A] 29 129
21A2 14 64
8
41A 31 131
Attached to respondentÊs petition were

9
photocopiesof
10 11
the
election returns from precincts 71A, 30A and 21A2 and
photocopiesof
12
certified true copies of the Statement of
Votes.
_______________
3Id., at p. 6.
4 COMELEC Records at pp. 1-16.
5Id., at p. 2.
6 Based on the Election Returns.

7 Based on the Statement of Votes.
8 COMELEC Records at p. 5.
9Id., at p. 11.
10Id., at p. 12.
11Id., at p. 13.
12Id.,at pp. 14-16.
682

Respondent likewise alleged that the said entries for the

four precincts were statistically improbable because
petitioner „garnered
13
so much higher votes than the other
candidates.‰
As, by the Certificate of Canvass, petitioner led
respondent by 46 votes whereas the „discrepancy‰ between
the Statement of Votes and the election returns was 350,
respondent prayed before the COMELEC for the correction
of errors in the Statement of Votes and Certificate of
Canvass, the declaration as null and void of the
proclamation of petitioner, and her proclamation
14
as one of
the duly elected municipal councilors.
Petitioner, who in the meantime took his oath of office
on June 29, 2001 and 15
thereafter assumed the position of
municipal councilor, prayed in his Answer to respondentÊs
petition before the COMELEC for the dismissal of the
petition on the following grounds: (1) the petition was filed
beyond the reglementary
16
period of five (5) days from date of
proclamation, (2) pre-proclamation cases should be 17
terminated after proclamation and assumption of office,
and (3) padding of statement of18 votes is not a proper
subject of a pre-proclamation case. 19
The BOC, on the other hand, in its Answer with motion
for the reconvening of the BOC to effect the correction of
entries in the Statement of Votes, proffered unawareness of,
and disclaimed any hand in, any irregularity in the copying
of the number of votes from the election returns to the
Statement of Votes, as its role during the canvassing was
limited to appreciating election returns, the canvassing
20
having been done by21 two sub-canvassing commit-tees.
In its Resolution of December 18, 2001, the COMELEC
En Banc,found as follows:
_______________
13Id., at p. 4.
14Id.,at p. 7.
15Id.,at p. 76.
16 Rollo at pp. 49-51.
17Id., at pp. 51-52.
18Id.,at pp. 52-55.
19Id., at pp. 58-61.
20Id.,at pp. 59-60.
21Id., at pp. 30-36.
683
VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 683

. . . Milla, on the other hand, does not deny...the padding of his votes
by three hundred fifty (350) votes, but instead moved for the
dismissal of the petition on the petty ground of a technicality
that the petition was filed beyond the five (5) day
reglementary period for filing petitions of its sort.
xxx
Given the attendant evidence at hand, specifically the
unexplained mismatched inscriptions in the entries for the
questioned precincts in the Statement of Votes, we conclude that the
padding of three hundred fifty (350) votes committed by
respondent Board in order to favor respondent Milla is
beyond the realm of an honest mistake.As to the correct
number of votes, it is without question that what appears in the
election returns is the actual number of votes garnered by private
respondent.
xxx
In addition, not a single item in the material averments of the
Petition was specifically denied by either respondent, thus lending
credence to the complete truthfulness of petitionerÊs account of the
„dagdag-bawas‰ scheme which she has already proven by clear and
convincing evidence.
As such, we cannot leave the „correction‰ of the „error‰ in
canvassing to the same body [which] perpetrated such
22
„error,‰ as they so pray for in their answer. (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
and denied the BOCÊs motion to reconvene, declared herein

petitionerÊs proclamation null and void, and proclaimed
respondent as the eighth winning candidate.
Hence, the present recourse anchored on the following
grounds:
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION[S] HAS NO JURISDICTION

TO PROCLAIM RESPONDENT AS THE EIGHT[H] WINNING
CANDIDATE FOR COUNCILOR AND TO DECLARE
23
PETITIONERÊS PROCLAMATION NULL AND VOID.
II
THE RESOLUTION IN QUESTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY

24
THE EVIDENCE.
_______________
22Id.,at pp. 32-34.

23Id.,at p. 12.
24Id., at p. 23.
684

Petitioner maintains that the COMELEC has no

jurisdiction over the petition as it was filed beyond the
reglementary period. For, so petitioner contends, since the
proclamation was made on May 18, 2001, the petition to
correct the Statement of Votes should have been filed
within 5 days thereafter conformably with Section
25
5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which reads: Sec.
5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With

the Commission.·(a) The following pre-proclamation controversies
may be filed directly with the Commission:
1) x x x
2) When the issue involves the correction of manifest errors in
the tabulation or tallying of the results during the
canvassing as where (1) a copy of the election returns or
certificate of canvass was tabulated more than once, (2) two
or more copies of the election returns of one precinct, or two
or more copies of certificate of canvass were tabulated
separately, (3) there has been a mistake in the copying of
the figures into the statement of votes or into the certificate
of canvass, or (4) so-called returns from nonexistent
precincts were included in the canvass, and such errors
could not have been discovered during the canvassing
despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the
winning candidates had already been made.
b) x x x
If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than five
(5) days following the date of proclamation and must implead all
candidates who may be adversely affected thereby.
x x x (Italics supplied)
In holding that it validity assumed jurisdiction over the

petition, the COMELEC asserts that „[a] proclamation that
is based on a clerical or mathematical mistake (or a blatant
padding of votes) is not a valid proclamation [h]ence, the
same can be challenged even 26
after the proclaimed
candidate has assumed office.‰
The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate
of Canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the
statement ultimately
27
affects the validity of the
proclamation.
_______________
25Id.,at p. 13.
26Id., at p. 34.
27 Castromayor v. COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298, 304 (1995); Duremdes v.
COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746, 757 (1989).
685
VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 685

If a candidateÊs proclamation is based on a Statement of

Votes which contains erroneous entries, it is null and void.
It is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidateÊs
assumption of office cannot deprive
28
the COMELEC of the
power to annul the proclamation.
In the case at bar, as the Statement of Votes contained
erroneous entries, the COMELEC rightfully assumed
jurisdiction over respondentÊs petition for the correction
thereof and declaration of nullity of petitionerÊs
proclamation. While our election laws are silent when such
and similar29 petitions may be filed directly with the
COMELEC, the above-quoted Section 5, Rule 27 of the
Rules of Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five (5) days
following the date of proclamation. The COMELEC,
however, could suspend its own Rules 30of Procedure so as
not to defeat the will of the electorate. For adherence to
technicality that would put a stamp on a palpably void
proclamation, with the inevitable result
31
of frustrating the
peopleÊs will, cannot be countenanced.
Petitioner nevertheless posits that even assuming that
the COMELEC may suspend the application of Section 5,
Rule 27 of its Rules of Procedure, it can no longer exercise
jurisdiction
32
after his proclamation, oath and assumption
33
of
office in view of Section 16 of Republic Act 7166 which
states:
Sec. 16. Pre-Proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and

Municipal Offices.·Pre-proclamation cases involving provincial,
city and
_______________
28 Ramirez v.COMELEC, 270 SCRA 590, 602 (1997); Torres v. COMELEC,

270 SCRA 583, 588-589 (1997); Castromayor v.COMELEC, 250 SCRA 298, 304
(1995); Benito v. COMELEC,235 SCRA 436, 443 (1994); Duremdes
v.COMELEC,178 SCRA 746, 757 (1989); Aguam v. COMELEC,23 SCRA 883,
888 (1968); Pedido v.COMELEC,22 SCRA 1403, 1414 (1968); Mutuc
v.COMELEC,22 SCRA 662, 669 (1968).

29 H. de Leon and H. de Leon, Jr., The Law on Public Officers and Election
Law, 687-688 (4th ed., 2000); R. Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus Election
Code 356 (1998).
30 Trinidad v. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 836, 842 (1999); Torres v. COMELEC,
270 SCRA 583, 589 (1997).
31 Bince v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273, 286 (1995).
32 Rollo at pp. 17-21.
33 Entitled „An Act Providing for the Synchronized National and Local
Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefore, and
for Other Purposes.‰
686

municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections

17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 hereof. All pre-proclamation cases
pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated
at the beginning of the term of the 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 evidence thus far presented, the
Commission determined 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. (Emphasis
supplied)
By petitionerÊs claim, there is no showing that respondentÊs

petition falls under the exception in the above-quoted
provision as „the petition has not been determined by the
COMELEC to be meritorious‰ and 34 „no order has been
issued for the proceeding to continue.‰ The claim does not
lie. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 4493 on June 29,
2001 declaring the termination of all pre-proclamation
cases except those included in the list annexed thereto which
list included SPC No. 01-311, respondentÊs petition before
the COMELEC subject of the present petition.
Petitioner additionally claims that the COMELEC, in
assuming original jurisdiction over a case involving

municipal officials, acted beyond the limits of its power
under the Constitution,
35
particularly Section 2, paragraph 2
of Article IX-C which provides:
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following

powers and functions:
(1) . . .
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective regional, provincial, and cityofficials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officialsdecided 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.
(3) . . . (Emphasis and italics supplied)
_______________
34 Rollo at p. 19.
35Id., at p. 22.
687
VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 687

PetitionerÊs above-claim does not likewise lie. By his

admission, the petition filed by respondent before the
COMELEC involves a pre-proclamation controversy, not an
election contest and indeed it is not, for while the petition
alleged fraud and statistical improbability, the remedy
sought was merely for correction of erroneous entries in the
Statement of Votes which were based on the election
returns.
As the petition then of respondent involves a pre-
proclamation controversy, following Sec. 3 of Art. IX-C of
the 1987 Constitution which provides:
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two

divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and
decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.(Emphasis and italics supplied)
it should have first

36
been heard and decided by a division of
the COMELEC, and then by the En Banc if a motion for
reconsideration or the decision of the division were filed.
Since, as reflected above, the COMELEC sitting en banc
acted on respondentÊs petition which was not first passed
upon by a division, it acted37
without jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion. The assailed Resolution of the
COMELEC dated December 18, 2001 is thus null and void
and it is in this light that the present petition is
GRANTED. This leaves it unnecessary to pass on
petitionerÊs second assigned error.
WHEREFORE,the instant petition is GRANTED.The
Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated December 18,
2001 in SPC No. 01-311 is hereby SET ASIDE,and the
COMELEC is ordered to assign the SPC No. 01-311 to a
division, which is hereby directed to resolve the same with
reasonable dispatch.
No pronouncement as to costs.
_______________
36 Baytan v.COMELEC,G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003, 396 SCRA

703.
37 Sarmiento v. COMELEC,212 SCRA 307, 314 (1992).
688

Grand Boulevard Hotel vs. Genuine Labor Organization of
Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries
(GLOWHRAIN)
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,

Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., On
official leave.
Petition granted, Resolution in SPC No. 01-311 set aside.
Notes.·Reopening of the ballot boxes is not a proper

issue for a pre-proclamation controversy but should be
threshed-out in an election protest. (Alfonso vs.
Commission on Elections, 232 SCRA 777 [1994])
A petition to declare a failure of election is neither a pre-
proclamation controversy nor an election case. (Borja, Jr.
vs. Commission on Elections, 260 SCRA 604 [1996])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

MillavBalmores Laxa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MillavBalmores Laxa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 406 23/08/2019, 10*00 PM

VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 679

MANUEL MILLA, petitioner, vs. REGINA BALMORES-

Election Law; Pre-Proclamation Controversies; Statement of

Same; Same; Jurisdiction; COMELEC En Banc and Divisions;

680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Milla vs. Balmores-Laxa

including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The petition at bar involves the power of the Commission

Daisy Mamba 14,558

1 Rollo at pp. 5-6.

VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 681

Francisco de Leon 9,390

Ricardo Parazo 8,781

One month after petitionerÊs proclamationor

[Manuel Milla and the Municipal Board of Canvassers], by

Attached to respondentÊs petition were

6 Based on the Election Returns.

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondent likewise alleged that the said entries for the

VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 683

and denied the BOCÊs motion to reconvene, declared herein

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION[S] HAS NO JURISDICTION

THE RESOLUTION IN QUESTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY

22Id.,at pp. 32-34.

684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioner maintains that the COMELEC has no

5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly With

In holding that it validity assumed jurisdiction over the

VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 685

If a candidateÊs proclamation is based on a Statement of

Sec. 16. Pre-Proclamation Cases Involving Provincial, City and

28 Ramirez v.COMELEC, 270 SCRA 590, 602 (1997); Torres v. COMELEC,

v.COMELEC,22 SCRA 662, 669 (1968).

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

municipal offices shall be allowed and shall be governed by Sections

By petitionerÊs claim, there is no showing that respondentÊs

assuming original jurisdiction over a case involving

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following

VOL. 406, JULY 18, 2003 687

PetitionerÊs above-claim does not likewise lie. By his

Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two

it should have first

36 Baytan v.COMELEC,G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003, 396 SCRA

688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,

Petition granted, Resolution in SPC No. 01-311 set aside.

Notes.·Reopening of the ballot boxes is not a proper

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like