Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 180711 June 22, 2010
RUDOLFO I. BELUSO, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, Respondents.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 to set aside and annul a portion of the
Resolution of the COMELEC dated April 26, 20072 and November 8, 2007,3 which declared
petitioner, Rudolfo I. Beluso, perpetually barred from serving in any capacity in any canvassing
board of the COMELEC, in relation to Election Offense Case No. 04-117 (Gabriela Women’s Party
vs. Atty. Nelly Abao-Lee, et al.) for being erroneous and issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In 2004, during the canvassing of the party list votes conducted by the National Board of Canvassers
(NBOC), GABRIELA Women’s Party (GABRIELA) discovered that the provincial certificate of
canvass for the Province of Capiz reflected only forty-three (43) votes for their party when it actually
garnered two thousand seventy-one (2,071) as shown by the Statement of Votes.
The Chairman of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) of Capiz, Atty. Nelly Abao-Lee,
however, was quick to admit the mistake and promised to request authority to immediately correct
the erroneous entries in the certificate of canvass. Subsequently, in Resolution No. 7158 4 dated May
19, 2004, the PBOC granted said request. Thus, the necessary corrections were made.
Nevertheless, despite the correction, on May 21, 2004, GABRIELA filed a Complaint against Atty.
Nelly Abao-Lee, Rudolfo I. Beluso, Elnora A. Barrios, Mary Grace Abagatnan, Sharon Barrientos,
Demetrio Forel and Antonio Sobrepeña for violation of Section 27 (b) of Republic Act No. 6646,
otherwise known as The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. On May 28, 2004, Director Alioden D.
Dalaig of the Law Department issued a Memorandum to Regional Election Director (RED) Victor C.
Gaborne directing him to conduct the preliminary investigation of the complaint. On March 21, 2006,
the said directive was issued anew to Atty. Tomas S. Valera. The same directive was re-issued to
the Acting RED, Dennis L. Agusan, on July 22, 2006, or more than two years after. On March 30,
2006, Atty. Valera issued summons to the respondents.
On April 21, 2006, respondents submitted their respective affidavits. In her Affidavit, 5 Atty. Abao-Lee
contended that it was only during the canvassing of the NBOC at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC) that she was informed of the inaccuracies in the entries in the Certificate
of Canvass of Capiz. She claimed that the erroneous entries were made by one of the Board’s
support personnel and admitted that she merely relied on the entries made by such personnel
without scrutinizing the accuracy thereof by comparing the entries in the Certificate of Canvass with
those reflected in the Statement of Votes.6
For their part, petitioner Beluso, the Provincial Prosecutor of Capiz and the Vice-Chairman of the
PBOC of Capiz, and Barrios, the Schools’ Superintendent of Capiz and Secretary of the PBOC of
Capiz, both claimed that the inaccuracies made in the Certificate of Canvass were due to human
error as admitted by Forel, one of the tabulators of the PBOC of Capiz. 1avvphi1
On the other hand, Abagatnan and Barrientos, both tabulators of the PBOC of Capiz, alleged that
due to voluminous work, the tabulators agreed that Forel and Sobrepeña, who were assigned to
assist them, will be the ones to record the entries to the Certificate of Canvass based on the actual
votes appearing in the tally board. Likewise, both admitted that they signed the Certificate of
Canvass without further examination and scrutiny.
For his part, Sobrepeña, in his Affidavit,7 claimed that he and Forel were designated as assistants of
the Tabulator’s team during the provincial canvass of the May 10, 2004 National and Local Elections
for the Province of Capiz. He and Forel were tasked to record in the Certificate of Canvass the votes
garnered by the candidates. He narrated that he and Forel agreed to divide the workload to hasten
the recording of votes in the Certificate of Canvass. Sobrepeña claimed that he recorded the entries
from the votes for president up to number 28 for Senators, while Forel recorded the entries from
number 29 for senators to number 45 of the party-list. Thereafter, he proceeded again with the
entries from number 46 for party-list onwards. He maintained that the erroneous entries were made
by Forel, as he was the one assigned with the recording of votes for GABRIELA. Sobrepeña
asserted that he signed the Statement of Votes in good faith, as he merely relied with the supposed
correctness of the entries and never intended to defraud the concerned candidates. 8
Meanwhile, Forel, in his Affidavit,9 corroborated the statement of Sobrepeña. He admitted that he
was the one who recorded the entries from number 29 of the senatorial candidates up to number 45
of the party-list candidates in the Certificate of Canvass, while the rest of the entries were recorded
by Sobrepeña. Forel, likewise, admitted that he made a mistake in recording the votes for
GABRIELA. He admitted that he erroneously entered the 43 votes of KALOOB to GABRIELA,
instead of 2,071, which is the correct number of votes for the latter. He, however, stressed that the
errors were unintentional and not meant to defraud any party concerned. 10
In a Resolution11 dated April 26, 2007, the COMELEC dismissed the Complaint for lack of probable
cause to charge respondents, including petitioner Beluso. However, it found respondents’ errors to
be arising from "sheer gross negligence," especially on the part of the three members of the PBOC
of Capiz. It, thus, declared respondents to be perpetually barred from serving, in any capacity, in any
canvassing board of the COMELEC in any future election. The pertinent portion of the Resolution
reads:
Although the members of the PBOC are allowed to be assisted by their support staff during the
canvassing, the responsibility of preparing the certificate of canvass falls exclusively upon the three
members thereof. According to Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code as elaborated in Section
24 (k) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669, which lays down the general instructions for canvassing in
the May 10, 2004 Elections, the Board of Canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass, together
with the supporting statement of votes. The substantial preparation of this document cannot be
left to a support staff by letting said staff copy the figures from the statement of votes into
the certificate of canvass without the members of the Board personally checking for
themselves the accuracy of the data so copied. It is in this regard that the members of the
PBOC failed in the performance of their assigned duties.
This total lack of exercise of oversight functions and supervision by the three principal members of
the PBoC over the work of their subordinates in the canvassing body resulted into a haphazard and
mindless execution of legally sanctioned procedures. Although the mistake was clearly not
intentional – the reckless negligence clearly evident in the method of its commission – the
oversight committed by the members of the board in leaving the sensitive task of
accomplishing the certificate of canvass to a mere supply officer and an eleventh hour
recruit, without double-checking the correctness of the entries made by said supply officer,
almost borders on criminal negligence.12
On May 11, 2007, Beluso filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. He argued that he is not
negligent; hence, the penalty of perpetual disqualification from serving in any canvassing board of
the COMELEC was too harsh and unreasonable.
On November 8, 2007, COMELEC denied his motion for lack of merit. 13
Thus, the instant petition for certiorari.
Petitioner advances the following arguments:
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ERRONEOUSLY FOUND
PETITIONER TO BE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY AS A
MEMBER OF THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CAPIZ.
II
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN IT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT PETITIONER HEREIN BE BARRED
FROM SERVING IN ANY CAPACITY IN ANY CANVASSING BOARD OF THIS COMMISSION IN
ANY FUTURE ELECTIONS.
The petition lacks merit.
A special civil action for certiorari, under Rule 65, is an independent action based on the specific
grounds therein provided and will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave
abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65, has a
specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or
personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an
evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law.
For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross.14 Such is not the case here.
Nothing in the records of this case supports petitioner’s bare assertion that the COMELEC rendered
its assailed Resolutions with grave abuse of discretion. Beluso alleged grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the COMELEC in perpetually disqualifying him to serve in any canvassing board, yet
failed to prove where the abuse existed.
Notably, the apparent thrust of Beluso’s petition is the alleged error on the part of the COMELEC in
drawing its conclusions based on its findings and investigation. Thus, in reality, what Beluso was
questioning is the COMELEC’s appreciation of evidence. At this point, however, it is not this Court’s
function to re-evaluate the findings of fact of the COMELEC, given its limited scope of its review
power, which is properly confined only to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
Moreover, the arguments in the petition and the issues alleged are only possible errors of judgment,
questioning the correctness of the COMELEC’s rulings. Where the real issue involves the wisdom
or legal soundness of the decision – not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision –
the same is beyond the province of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.15
It is well settled that a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for
any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court within the bounds of its
jurisdiction.16 The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised in
order to review the judgment of the lower court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or
the facts of the case.17
In People v. Court of Appeals,18 the Court expounded, thus:
As observed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al. "the special civil action for
certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
The raison d’etre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while
so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is
committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice
would not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal
soundness of the decision – not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision – the
same is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. x x x 19
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
