• Columbres v.

Comelec, GR 142038, September 18, 2000

Facts:

The petitioner, Rolando Columbres, contested the election and proclamation of Hilario de Guzman Jr. as
the mayor of San Jacinto, Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections. De Guzman was declared the winner
with 4,248 votes compared to Columbres’ 4,104 votes. Columbres filed an election protest, and the trial
court ruled in his favor, declaring him as the duly elected mayor. However, de Guzman appealed the
decision to the COMELEC, and the COMELEC Second Division reversed the trial court’s decision,
upholding de Guzman as the winner. Columbres filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the
COMELEC’s findings on the contested ballots. The COMELEC en banc denied the motion for
reconsideration, prompting Columbres to file a petition for certiorari, seeking the nullification of the
COMELEC’s resolutions.

Issues:

Whether the findings of fact of the COMELEC Division, particularly in the appreciation of ballots, are
absolute and cannot be subject to a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc.

No

Whether, in the appreciation of ballots, when a ballot is found to be marked, absent any evidence
aliunde, there is a presumption that the markings were placed by a third person and should not
invalidate the ballot.

Yes

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Columbres and remanded the case to the COMELEC. They held that
the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in declaring that the findings on the contested ballots are
findings of fact that cannot be subject to a motion for reconsideration. The COMELEC should have
undertaken an independent appreciation of the contested ballots to determine the validity of the
conflicting rulings of the trial court and the COMELEC Second Division. The Court emphasized the need
for a physical examination of the questioned ballots to ascertain their validity.

The case was remanded to the COMELEC, directing them to physically re-examine the contested ballots
and resolve the case within 30 days from receipt of the decision. The ruling is immediately executory.

The ruling focused on the COMELEC en banc’s abuse of discretion in handling the case and its failure to
properly resolve the motion for reconsideration. However, the case indirectly highlighted the COMELEC’s
function in resolving election-related disputes and its power to physically re-examine contested ballots.
The Court emphasized the importance of the COMELEC’s duty to properly appreciate the evidence and
resolve election protests in accordance with law and jurisprudence.