DUMAYAS, JR.

VS COMELEC
G.R. No. 141952-53 | QUISUMBING, J. | APRIL 20, 2001
COMMON PROVISIONS
DOCTRINES:
 A decision becomes binding only after its promulgation (Jamil vs COMELEC). 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on the decision must automatically be withdrawn or cancelled.

xxxHowever, 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.

 Findings of fact by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) or any other administrative agency exercising
particular expertise in its field of endeavor, are binding on the 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.

RELEVANT FACTS
 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 precinct nos.
61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan was 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 laws; acts of terrorism, intimidation, coercion, and similar acts prohibited by law."
 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.
 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.
 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. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on
May 15, 1998. The appeal was given due course by the COMELEC Second Division3 which rendered a resolution
dated August 4, 1998. On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., filed a motion for reconsideration
of the above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
 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
 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.
 Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita filed an action for quo warranto
against 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.
|1
 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 and reversed and set aside the Resolution of COMELEC Second Division. Thus the
proclamation of Dumayas was annulled and COMELEC en banc ordered the inclusion of the contested election
returns. Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and Japal Guiani, who have participated in the earlier deliberations and
signed the August 24 ,1999 resolution have already retired at the time of its promulgation.
 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.

ISSUE
1) Whether or not the resolution promulgated on March 2, 2000 is illegal as it was violative of article IX (A)
section 7 of the Constitution considering that only 4 commissioners voted to reverse the resolution dated
August 4, 1998 of the Second Division, as 2 commissioners have already retired.- NO

2) Whether or not the COMELEC err in ordering the inclusion of the contested election returns in the canvassing
of ballots.- NO
3) Whether or Not respondent Bernal, who was named as petitioner in the quo warranto proceedings
commenced before the regular court, deemed to have abandoned the motions he had filed with the
respondent Commission.- NO

RATIO DECIDENDI

1) No. In Jamil v. 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.

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.

2) No. 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. In the present case, petitioner
barely alleged that the preparation of said returns was attended by threats, duress, intimidation or coercion

|2
 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 aliunde which cannot be done in a pre-proclamation controversy such as
the one initiated by petitioner. Returns cannot 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 properly cognizable in an
election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy.
3) No. 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 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.
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

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

|3