Co, Selynn

Article III. Section 1. I. Procedural Due Process A. Administrative; Quasi-Judicial Proceedings; Arbitration 2.
Aspects of the Proceedings

Velayo v. COMELEC – 327 SCRA 713 [2000]

FACTS: Arthur Velayo (petitioner) and Ernesto Natividad (respondent) were candidates for mayor of Gapan, Neva
Ecija in the 1998 elections. In the canvass of election returns, Natividad orally sought the exclusion of Election
Returns Nos. 4245882 and 4900753, the first being allegedly incomplete and containing material defects, while the
other having material defects and without the thumb marks of the official watchers. The Board of Canvassers denied
these objections.

Respondent then filed with COMELEC for the annulment of the election returns. The petition did not name any
respondent. On the same day, respondent also sent a letter to the Board seeking the disqualification of its Chairman
and Vice Chairman for gross violation of the law. The Board denied the prayer to suspend the canvass, and declared
petitioner as the Mayor of Gapan with a vote of 10,697. Respondent obtained 10,427 votes.

Respondent filed another case with the COMELEC to appeal the ruling of the Board. Again, the petition did not
name the Canvassers or Velayo as respondents. Neither were they furnished copies of the petition.

A third case was filed, and late a supplemental appeal. Again, the petition did not name the Canvassers or Velayo as
respondents. Neither were they furnished copies of the petition. He filed a motion for admission for new evidence,
without furnishing copies to the petitioner. The COMELEC dismissed the petitions for being moot and academic.

In his motion for reconsideration, respondent contended that the dismissal order was contrary to law and evidence.
Petitioner was not furnished a copy. COMELEC en banc issued the questioned resolution, annulling the
proclamation of Velayo as mayor, directing the exclusion of the subject election returns. It was only then that
petitioner was informed.

Respondent was declared mayor.

ISSUES: W/N COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion when it excluded votes cast for the certain
election returns, without notice and hearing consistent with due process?

HELD:

1. Motion for Reconsideration of the Respondent was filed out of time.

2. COMELEC failed to be faithful to COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which provides that "all pre-proclamation
controversies shall be heard summarily after due notice.” Petitioner was not furnished with any notice of the
pre-proclamation proceedings from beginning to end. Natividad also did not give his notices of appeal to the
Board of Canvassers. All that was received by the petitioner was the en banc resolution annulling his
proclamation.

Velayo is a real party in interest. His non-inclusion as respondent and his lack of notice of the proceedings in
the COMELEC which resulted in the cancellation of his proclamation constitute clear denial of due process.

3. Pre and post proclamation proceedings should be resolved summarily but not ex parte. This denies petitioner an
opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. It is true that RA No. 7166 (Omnibus Election Code) provides for
summary proceedings in pre-proclamation cases and does not require a trial type hearing. Nevertheless,
summary proceedings cannot be stretched to mean ex parte proceedings.

4. It does not appear that the COMELEC annulled Velayo’s proclamation o n the basis of official records and
evidence. Sec 18 of RA 7166 governs the appeals of decisions made the Board of Canvassers. It provides, “All
pre- proclamation controversies on election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of the records
 and evidence elevated to it by the board of canvassers, be disposed of summarily by the Commission within
seven (7) days from receipt thereof.“

There is no showing that the official records of the Board of Canvassers were forwarded to the respondent
COMELEC and were used to cancel Velayos proclamation.

5. The new and additional evidence were not presented before the Board of Canvassers.Petitioner Velayo was not
furnished these evidence and given the chance to refute them. This is another denial of due process.

6. The new evidence’s evidentiary value cannot justify the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner Velayo.
The COMELEC relied on the affidavits of the watchers of the private respondent. Taken together, these
affidavits do not constitute substantial evidence. The truthfulness of their affidavits is highly suspect. The more
impartial witnesses like the teachers were not presented by Natividad.

7. COMELECs resort to the doctrine of statistical improbability is flawed. As observed by petitioner Velayo, from
experiences in past elections, respondent COMELEC should be aware that it is possible for one candidate or
even a few candidates to get zero votes in one or a few precincts.

COMELEC’s resolution is set aside. COMELEC is ordered to reinstate Velayo as mayor.