G.R. Nos. 141952-53. April 20, 2001.

RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR., petitioner, [Link] ON

ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS
OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARLES, PROVINCE OF
ILOILO and FELIPE BERNAL, JR., respondents.
Election Law; Omnibus Election Code; Commission on Elections; If
at the time it is promulgated, a judge or member of the collegiate court
who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated office, his vote
on the decision must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled.—
In Jamil vs. Commission on Elections, we held that a decision becomes
binding only after its promulgation. If at the time it is promulgated, a
judge or member of the collegiate court who had earlier signed or
registered his vote has vacated office, his vote on the decision must
automatically be withdrawn or cancelled. Accordingly, the votes of
Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani should merely be considered as
withdrawn for the reason that their retirement preceded the
resolution’s promulgation. The effect of the withdrawal of their votes
would be as if they had not signed the resolution at all and only the
votes of the remaining commissioners would be properly considered for
the purpose of deciding the controversy.
Same; Same; Same; Generally, the filing of an election protest or a
petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-
proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier
filed; Exceptions.—As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or
a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-
proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one
earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire
into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his
proclamation. The
_____________
*EN BANC.
359
VOL. 359
357, APRIL
20, 2001
 Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired
jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all
questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and
not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and conflict of
authority. Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of
certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was
improperly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy;(c)
what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election
protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the filing of a quo
warranto petition or an election protest was expressly made without
prejudice to the pre-proclamation controversy or was made ad
cautelam; and (e) the proclamation was null and void.
Same; Same; Same; Election Protest; An election protest is a contest
between the defeated and winning candidates on the ground of frauds
or irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or in the
preparation of the returns; A petition for quo warranto under the
Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of
the winning candidate,—An examination of the petition filed primarily
by Vice-Mayor Betita with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City
reveals that it is neither a quo warranto petition under the Omnibus
Election Code nor an election protest. In Samad vs. COMELEC, we
explained that a petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election
Code raises in issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning
candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but
not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. An election protest
is a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the
ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and counting of the
ballots, or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the question of
who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is
entitled to hold the office.
Same; Same; Same; Findings of fact by the Commission on
Elections or any other administrative agency exercising particular
expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on the Court.—Well-
entrenched is the rule that findings of fact by the COMELEC or any
other administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field
of endeavor, are binding on this Court. In a pre-proclamation
controversy, the board of canvassers and the COMELEC are not
required to look beyond or behind the election returns which are on
their face regular and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues
the resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce the
veil of election returns which are prima facie regular, the proper
remedy is a regular election protest, not a pre-proclamation
controversy.
360
360 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Hector P. Teodosio for petitioner.
Antonio P. Pacheco for private respondent.
QUISUMBING, J.:
In this special civil action, petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr.,
seeks to nullify the Resolution promulgated March 2, 2000 by
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc,reversing
that of the Second Division dated August 4, 1998, which
annulled the petitioner’s proclamation as Municipal Mayor of
Carles, Iloilo.
The antecedent facts of the case, as found by the
COMELEC en banc, are as follows:
Petitioner Dumayas, Jr. and respondent Bernal, Jr. were rival
candidates for the position of mayor in Carles, Iloilo last 11 May 1998
synchronized elections.
During the canvassing on 13 May 1998, election returns for precincts
nos. 61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan were protested
for inclusion in the canvass before the Municipal Board of Canvassers
(MBC for brevity) by petitioner-appellant Dumayas, Jr. The grounds
relied upon for their exclusion are all the same—that is, “violation of
Secs. 234, 235, 236 of the Omnibus Election Code and other election
law; acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts
prohibited by law.” Appellant Dumayas, Jr. submitted his evidence to
the Board of Canvassers on 14 May 1998 which consist of (a) the joint
affidavits executed by LAMMP watchers for precinct 61A: Teresita
Oblido, Reyland de la Rosa, and Armando Flores [signed by Oblido and
Flores only]; (b) affidavit of petitioner’s supporter Virgilisa Capao; (c)
joint affidavit of precinct 63A -watcher Nona Dichosa and precinct 62A
- watcher Daniel Carmona; (d) blotter report dated 12 May 1998 of
Carles PNP, Iloilo; and (d) corroborating affidavit of LAMMP supporter
Honorato Gallardo.
All the affidavits submitted by petitioner contain similar
attestations such as: certain local baranggay (sic) officials were inside
the polling place during the casting and counting of votes, or acted as
watcher of respondent; SPO3 Gilbert Sorongon who was in shorts and
t-shirt armed with an armalite roamed around and inside the polling
places; a CVO in uniform was roaming precinct 63A; the presence of
the public officials
361
VOL. 357, 361
APRIL 20, 2001
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
posed threat and intimidation driving most of the watchers of other
political parties away; the BEIs were so intimidated and coerced that
no election return was prepared simultaneous with the tallying; the
election returns were prepared under duress; the voters were coerced
to vote for certain favored candidates especially herein respondent;
petitioner’s watchers were made to sign or affix their thumbmarks on
the already prepared election returns; in precinct 63A/64A, the voting
ended at almost 9:00 P.M. without the BEI members writing the names
of such voters.
Petitioner also submitted a certification issued by PO3 Tito Billones,
Desk Officer of PNP Carles representing the blotter report (extracted
from the police log book) which states that on 12 May 1998, Virgilisa
Capao reported to the Police Station of Carles, Iloilo that PO3 Sorongon
and Brgy. Capt. Mahilum entered Precinct 63A with (sic) the company
of other CVO and Brgy. Kagawad during election. And that these
people gravely intimidated the voters by telling them the names of the
candidates they should vote for. It also states that PO3 Sorongon was
not in his prescribed uniform when seen with hand grenades hanging
on his neck and carrying an armalite roaming inside and outside the
polling place.
On the other hand, respondent Bernal, Jr. in vehemently denying
the allegations of petitioner, submitted joint affidavits of the members
of the different Boards of Election Inspectors for precinct nos. 61A, 62A
and 63A/64A.
xxx
All the supplemental affidavits of the different BEIs categorically
declared that the elections in their respective precincts “starting from
the start of the voting to its closing, to the counting of votes and to the
preparation and submission of election returns” were peaceful, clean,
orderly and no acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion and similar acts
prohibited by law was (sic) exerted on anybody including the voters and
members of the BEIs. They all attested that the incidents alleged by
petitioner’s watchers did not happen. The alleged terrorism, coercion,
or violation of election laws like the opening of ballots and reading the
votes allegedly done by certain public officials like SPO3 Sorongon,
Nody Mahilum, Anonia Barrios, Telesforo Gallardo and others are not
true, the truth being that these people were only inside the polling
place to exercise their right of suffrage. They also vehemently denied
that the election returns were not simultaneously prepared with the
tallying and counting of votes. They stressed that as public school
teachers, they cannot risk their future and career and will not allow or
tolerate anybody to make a mockery of the electoral process to (sic)
which they were duly sworn to uphold.
362
362 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
Nody Mahilum and PO3 Gilbert Sorongon also executed a joint
affidavit denying the accusations of Dumayas, Jr. and his watchers
stating therein that they only entered their respective precinct-polling
place in order to exercise their right of suffrage and that the election
in the three precincts of Barangay Pantalan was orderly, peaceful, and
honest which (sic) truly reflects the will of the electorate.
xxx 1

In the afternoon of May 14, 1998, the Municipal Board of

Canvassers denied petitioner’s objection to the inclusion of the
contested returns and proceeded with the canvass. The results
of the voting were as follows:
DUMAYAS BERNAL
CONTESTED PRECINCTS
Prec. 44 117
61A
Prec. 43 114
62A
Prec. 54 159
63A/64A
(clustered)
Uncontested 7,636 7,514
prec[incts]
total
Over all 7,777 7,904 2

total
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15,
1998. The appeal was given due course by the COMELEC
Second Division which rendered a resolution dated August 4,
3

1998, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the preparation of the contested election
returns to be tainted with irregularities, this Commission (SECOND
DIVISION) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to EXCLUDE
Election Return No. 3000976 from Precinct No. 61-A; Election Return
No. 3000977 from Precinct No. 62-A; and Election return No. 3000978
from Precinct Nos. 63-A/64-A (clustered).
________________
1 Rollo, pp. 83-87.
2 Id. at 127.
3 Composed of Commissioners Japal Guiani (Ponente), Julio Desamito (Dissenting) and

then COMELEC Chairman (now SC Associate Justice) Bernardo Pardo (Concurring and
Sitting with the Division under Rule 3, Sec. 2 [2nd par.] Comelec Rules of Procedure.
363
VOL. 357, 363
APRIL 20, 2001
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
Respondent Mun(i)cipal Board of Canvassers is hereby directed to
RECONVENE and FINISH the canvass of the remaining or
uncontested returns and thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning
mayoralty candidate of Carles, Iloilo.
SO ORDERED. 4

On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr.,

filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-cited resolution
with the COMELEC en banc.
On August 12, 1998, an order certifying that the motion for
reconsideration and records of the case were elevated to the
COMELEC en banc was signed by Commissioner Julio F.
Desamito and issued by the Clerk of the Commission.
Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and
pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC Second Division,
Election Officer Rolando Dalen set the reconvening of the MBC
on August 13, 1998, for the continuation of canvass proceedings
and proclamation of winning candidates for Vice-Mayor and
Municipal Councilors of Carles, Iloilo. No winner for the
position of Mayor was proclaimed since private respondent was
able to present a copy of his motion for reconsideration before
the MBC. The MBC then reset the date for reconvening of the
board on August 17, 1998, after confirming by phone with
COMELEC-Manila that a motion for reconsideration was
indeed filed by private respondent. Thereafter, the MBC ruled
that proclamation of the winning candidate for Mayor would
proceed on August 17, 1998 unless private respondent could
present a certification from the COMELEC that the motion for
reconsideration was elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
On August 17, 1998, despite presentation of the August 12,
1998 order, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the election
after excluding from the canvass the election returns from the
three contested precincts in accordance with the COMELEC
Second Division Resolution. The MBC, with its Vice-Chairman
dissenting, justified its act by reasoning that it did not receive
an official copy of the order directing the elevation of the case
to the banc.
_____________
4Supra, note 1 at 56.
364
364 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
The following day, private respondent immediately filed an
Urgent motion to declare void ab initio the proclamation of
petitioner on the ground that the resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division was not yet final and executory. For his part,
petitioner opposed both the motion for reconsideration and
motion to declare void ab initio his proclamation as Mayor of
Carles, asserting that private respondent failed to show
palpable errors to warrant reconsideration of said resolution
and maintaining, at the same time, that his proclamation was
legal since respondent failed to produce the certification
required by the MBC.
Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-
Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo warranto against
5

petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 66.

Docketed as Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141, said petition included
respondent Bernal as one of the petitioners together with Vice-
Mayor Betita.
On September 18, 1998, petitioner filed before the
COMELEC en banc a motion to expunge respondent Bernal’s
motion for reconsideration and motion to declare petitioner’s
proclamation void ab initio,on the ground that respondent
Bernal should be deemed to have abandoned said motions by
the filing of Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 which, according to
petitioner, is a formal election protest via quo
warranto brought before the regular courts.
In a resolution dated August 24, 1999 but promulgated on
March 2, 2000, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s
motion to expunge, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the Second
Division is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the proclamation
of Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. is hereby ANNULLED. A new Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Carles, Iloilo is hereby constituted with the
following members: Atty. Nelia Aureus, Chairman; Atty. Rosel Abad,
Vice-Chairman; arid Atty. Manuel Lucero, Third Member—all of
Election Contests and Adjudication Department of the Commission.
They are directed to convene at Session Hall of the COMELEC—Main
Office, Manila on the tenth (10th) day from the date of promulgation of
this Resolution with notice to the parties, ‘the new board of canvassers
shall complete the canvassing of all the returns and proceed With the
proclamation of the true winner for
____________
5Id. at 67-72.
365
VOL. 357, 365
APRIL 20, 2001
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
the position of mayor of Carles, Iloilo. Petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr.
is hereby directed to cease and desist from performing the functions of
the office of mayor of Carles, Iloilo. Election Officer Rolando Dalen is
hereby directed to bring to the Commission’s Main Office the election
returns of Carles, Iloilo which need to be canvassed and the other
election documents necessary for the canvassing and proclamation and
turn them over to the new board of canvassers.
The Law Department is directed to investigate the election offense
allegedly committed by PO3 Gilbert Sorongon on election day.
Let the Deputy Executive Director for Operations of the Commission
implement this Resolution with dispatch giving a copy thereof to the
Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government.
SO ORDERED. 6

On March 13, 2000, respondent Bernal, Jr. was proclaimed by

the newly-constituted Municipal Board of Canvassers as the
duly-elected Mayor of the Municipality of Carles, thereby
unseating petitioner Dumayas.
Hence, this instant special civil action where he alleges that:
1. [Link] COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT, PRIVATE RESPONDENT FELIPE
 BERNAL, JR. IS DEEMED TO HAVE ABANDONED
HIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTION EN BANC
CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT,
TOGETHER WITH ARNOLD BETITA FILED AN
ELECTION CASE THRU A QUO WARRANTO, BEFORE
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO BRANCH
66, DOCKETED AS CASE NO. 98-141.
2. BRESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN
UPHOLDING THE INCLUSION FOR CANVASS THE
THREE ELECTION RETURNS FOR PRECINCT NOS.
61-A, 62-A, and 63-A/64-A (CLUSTERED) BY THE
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CARLES,
ILOILO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
THERE IS CLEAR AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THAT THE ELECTION RETURNS FOR THESE
THREE PRECINCT(S) WERE PREPARED UNDER
DURESS AND NOT PREPARED SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE COUNTING OF VOTES.
____________
6Id., at 91.
366
366 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections

1. [Link] RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON MARCH 2,

2000 IS ILLEGAL AS IT WAS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE
IX (A) SECTION 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION
 CONSIDERING THAT ONLY FOUR COMMISSIONERS
VOTED TO REVERSE THE RESOLUTION DATED
AUGUST 4, 1998 OF THE SECOND DIVISION
COMMISSION ON ELECTION AND THAT, TWO
COMMISSIONER(S) HAVE ALREADY RETIRED, AT
THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION. 7

The following are the issues to be resolved: (1) Should

respondent Bernal, who was named as petitioner in the quo
warranto proceedings commenced before the regular court, be
deemed to have abandoned the motions he had filed with
respondent Commission? (2) Did the COMELEC err in
ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the
canvassing of ballots? (3) In view of the retirement of
Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani before the date of the
promulgation of the assailed resolution on March 2, 2000,
should said resolution be deemed null and void for being
violative of Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution?
We shall first discuss the third issue. Petitioner claims that
March 2, 2000 Resolution of the COMELEC is void because
Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and Japal Guiani have
already retired on the date of its promulgation, even if they had
participated earlier in the deliberations of the case and signed
the resolution dated August 24, 1999. Petitioner submits that
this defect invalidated the entire decision of the Commission
and that accordingly, a new vote should be taken to settle the
matter.
In Jamil vs. Commission on Elections, we held that a
8

decision becomes binding only after its promulgation. If at the

time it is promulgated, a judge or member of the collegiate
court who had earlier signed or registered his vote has vacated
office, his vote on the decision must automatically be
withdrawn or cancelled. Accordingly, the votes of
Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani should merely be
considered as withdrawn for the reason that their retirement
preceded the resolution’s promulgation. The effect of the
withdrawal of their votes would be as if they had not signed the
resolution at all and only the votes of the remaining
commissioners
_____________
7Id. at 17.
8283 SCRA 349, 371 (1997).
367
VOL. 357, 367
APRIL 20, 2001
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
would be properly considered for the purpose of deciding the
controversy.
However, unless the withdrawal of the votes would
materially affect the result insofar as votes for or against a
party is concerned, we find no reason for declaring the decision
a nullity. In the present case, with the cancellation of the votes
of retired Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani, the remaining
votes among the four incumbent commissioners at the time of
the resolution’s promulgation would still be 3 to 1 in favor of
respondent. Noteworthy, these remaining Commissioners still
constituted a quorum. In our view, the defect cited by petitioner
does not affect the substance or validity of respondent
Commission’s disposition of the controversy. The nullification
of the challenged resolution, in our view, would merely prolong
the proceedings unnecessarily.
Now, regarding the first issue raised by petitioner. Did
respondent Bernal effectively abandon his pending motions
before the COMELEC en banc by the filing of Spl. Civil Action
No. 98-141? Petitioner’s contention that Bernal did appears to
us untenable.
As a general rule, the filing of an election protest or a petition
for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a
preproclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment
of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the
authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee
or the validity of his proclamation. The reason for this rule is
that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of
an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions
relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and
not in another proceeding, so as to prevent confusion and
conflict of authority. 9

Nevertheless, the general rule is not absolute. It admits of

certain exceptions, as where: (a) the board of canvassers was
improp-
_____________

9 Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631, 638 (1993) citing: Sevilleja vs. COMELEC, 107
SCRA 141 (1981); Mogueis, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 576 (1981); Filart vs. COMELEC, 53
SCRA 457(1973); Reyes vs. Reyes, 22 SCRA 485 (1968); Agpalo, Comments on the Omnibus
Election Code, 1992 Ed., p. 337; Acain & Malimit vs. Board of Canvassers of Carmen, Agusan,
et al., 108 Phil. 165 (1960); Salvacion vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 513 (1989); and Padilla vs.
COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424 (1985).
368
368 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
erly constituted; (b) quo warranto was not the proper remedy;
(c) what was filed was not really a petition for quo warranto or
an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d)
the filing of a quo warranto petition or an election protest was
expressly made without prejudice to the pre-proclamation
controversy or was made ad cautelam; and (e) the proclamation
was null and void. 10

An examination of the petition filed primarily by Vice-Mayor

Betita with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that
it is neither a quo warranto petition under the Omnibus
Election Code nor an election protest. In Samad vs.
COMELEC, we 11 explained that a petition for quo
warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in issue the
disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a
proceeding to unseat the respondent from office but not
necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. An election
protest is a contest between the defeated and winning
candidates on the ground of frauds or irregularities in the
casting and counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the
returns. It raises the question of who actually obtained the
plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the
office.
The allegations contained in Betita’s petition before the
regular court do not present any proper issue for either an
election protest or a quo warranto case under the Omnibus
Election Code. Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 appears to be in the
nature of an action for usurpation of public office brought by
Betita to assert his right to the position of Mayor pursuant to
the rules on succession of local government officials contained
in the Local Government Code. Although said petition is also
12

denominated as a quo warranto petition under Rule 66 of the

Rules of Court, it is different in nature from the quo
warranto provided for in the Omnibus Election Code where the
only issue proper for determination is either disloyalty or
ineligibility of respondent therein. Neither can it be considered
as an election protest since what was put forth as an issue in
said petition was petitioner’s alleged unlawful assumption of
the office
____________
10 Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705, 713-714 (1997).
11 Supra, note 9 citing: Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code and Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil.
238 (1912).
12 Supra, note 1 at 90.

369
VOL. 357, 369
APRIL 20, 2001
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
of Mayor by virtue of his alleged illegal proclamation as the
winning candidate in the election.
A closer look at the specific allegations in the petition disclose
that Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 is actually an action for the
annulment of petitioner’s proclamation on the ground of
illegality and prematurity. This conclusion is consistent with
the rule that the nature of the action is determined by the
averments in the complaint or petition and not the title or13

caption thereof. The material stipulations of the petition

substantially state:
1. [Link] when the Board of Canvassers convened in the
afternoon and despite the submission of the copy of the
order certifying the Motion for Reconsideration to the
COMELEC En Banc and in violation of the Comelec Rules
and Procedure and due to the threat received by the
Board, Mr. Dalen, the Chairman of the Board and Mr.
Serafin Provido, Jr. signed the Certificate of Proclamation
proclaiming respondent as winner of the elections for
Mayor. Mr. Deony Cabaobao did not signed (sic) the said
Certificate of Proclamation as he dissented to (sic) the
decision to proclaim respondent;
 2. 14The proclamation, therefore, of respondent is illegal
and null and void from the very beginning for it was done
in violation of law and under duress. The affidavit of Mr.
Serafin Provido, Jr. a member of the Board of Canvassers
showing duress is hereto attached as Annex “C”;
3. 15On account of the illegal proclamation of the
respondent said proclamation does not vest any right or
authority for him to sit as Mayor of the town of Carles
thus when he sits as such Mayor he usurps, intrudes into,
and unlawfully holds and exercise(s) a public office
without authority;
4. 16The authority to act as mayor for and in the absence of
the duly proclaimed mayor is vested on petitioner Betita
pursuant to law;
5. 17That the continued unlawful exercise by the respondent
of the position of mayor of the town of Carles will cause
great and irreparable damage to the
petitioners, particularly petitioner Betita, who pursuant
to law is entitled to act as Mayor of the town of Carles and
the people of Carles who pays his salaries unless he be
restrained or enjoined from sitting (sic) as such Mayor;
_______________

Remedial Law Compendium, 1997 Ed., Justice F. D. Regalado, pp. 126 & 139-140.
13

370
370 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
xxx 14
Thus, respondent Commission did not err, much less abuse its
discretion, when it refused to consider as abandoned Bernal’s
motion for reconsideration and urgent motion to declare
petitioner’s proclamation as void ab initio. Note that under the
allegations cited above, the determination of Betita’s right
would ultimately hinge on the validity of petitioner’s
proclamation in the first place. To repeat, the “quo
warranto” petition brought by Vice-Mayor Betita is a petition
to annul petitioner’s proclamation over which COMELEC
exercises original exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, it could
not be deemed as a proper remedy in favor of respondent
Bernal, Jr. even if his name was included in the title of said
petition.
We now consider whether the MBC’s proclamation of
petitioner Dumayas as the winning candidate in the 1998
mayoralty election is null and void. For where a proclamation
is null and void, it is no proclamation at all such that the
proclaimed candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the
COMELEC of the power to declare such nullity and annul the
proclamation. 15

Although petitioner’s proclamation was undertaken

pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC’s Second Division,
it appears plain to us that the latter grievously erred in
ordering the exclusion of the contested returns from Precincts
61A, 62A and 63A/64A (clustered). On this score, the
Comelec en banccorrectly reversed the Second Division by
holding that petitioner Dumayas failed to justify the exclusion
of said returns on the ground of duress, intimidation, threat or
coercion. We note that the only evidence submitted by
petitioner to prove said irregularities were self-serving
affidavits executed by his watchers and supporters. Aside from
the fact that these allegations were countered by opposing
affidavits made by the members of the Boards of Election
Inspectors who are presumed to have regularly performed their
duties and who categori-
16

_____________
14 Supra, note 1 at 69-70.
15 Torres vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583, 588-589 (1997) citing: Aguam vs. COMELEC, 23
SCRA 883 (1968).
16 Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733, 756 (1997).

371
VOL. 357, 371
APRIL 20, 2001
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
cally denied the allegations, the election returns were also
observed to be genuine, clean, signed and/or thumbmarked by
the proper officials and watchers. 17

Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of fact by the

COMELEC or any other administrative agency exercising
particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on this
Court. In a pre-proclamation controversy, the board of
18

canvassers and the COMELEC are not required to look beyond

or behind the election returns which are on their face regular
and authentic. Where a party seeks to raise issues the
resolution of which would necessitate the COMELEC to pierce
the veil of election returns which are prima facie regular, the
proper remedy is a regular election protest, not a pre-
proclamation controversy. 19

In the present case, petitioner barely alleged that the

preparation of said returns was attended by threats, duress,
intimidation or coercion without offering any proof, other than
the affidavits mentioned above, that these had affected the
regularity or genuineness of the contested returns. Absent any
evidence appearing on the face of the returns that they are
indeed spurious, manufactured or tampered with, the election
irregularities cited by petitioner would require the reception of
evidence aliundewhich cannot be done in a pre-proclamation
controversy such as the one initiated by petitioner. Returns can
not be excluded on mere allegation that the returns are
manufactured or fictitious when the returns, on their face,
appear regular and without any physical signs of tampering,
alteration or other similar vice. If there had been sham voting
or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal
through falsification of the election returns, such grounds are
____________
17 Supra, note 12.
18 Cordero vs. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 118, 126 (1999) citing: Grego vs.
COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481(1997); Phil. Savings Bank vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409 (1996)
and Navarro vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 596 (1993).
19 Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482, 492 (1999) citing: Matalam vs. COMELEC,
supra; Loong vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1 (1996); Dimaporo vs. COMELEC, 186 SCRA
769 (1990); Dipatuan vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 86 (1990).
372
372 SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Dumayas, Jr. vs.
Commission on
Elections
properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a pre-
proclamation controversy. 20

In sum, we hold that the COMELEC en banc did not commit

grave abuse of discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second
Division. The appeal brought by petitioner from the order of
inclusion issued by the MBC should have been dismissed by
that Division right away, since the grounds for exclusion relied
upon by petitioner are not proper in a pre-proclamation case,
which is summary in nature.
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack
of merit, public respondent having committed no grave abuse
of discretion. Its challenged resolution dated August 24, 1999
is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, P
anganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-
Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed, resolution affirmed.
Note.—Section 49 of Comelec Resolution 2824 covers both
election protests and quo warranto cases. (Marquez vs.
Commission on Elections, 313 SCRA 103[1999])
——o0o——