EN BANC

[G.R. No. 155717. October 23, 2003.]

ALBERTO JARAMILLA , petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, ANTONIO SUYAT, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF STA. CRUZ, ILOCOS SUR, THE NEW
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS (COMELEC), AND
IRENEO CORTEZ, respondents.

Genaro C. Gines for petitioner.

Solicitor General for public respondents.
Rodrigo J. Romano for I. Cortez.
Brillantes Nachura Navarro Jumamil Arcilla Escolin &
Martinez Law Offices and Nelson A. Loyola for A. Suyat.

SYNOPSIS

Respondent Suyat and petitioner both ran for the position of Member
of the Sangguniang Bayan in 1the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur in the
May 14, 2001 elections. In the tabulated results, petitioner was ranked
number seven and respondent Suyat was ranked number nine. Upon review,
it was discovered that petitioner was credited fifty votes more than what he
actually obtained. If the entry were to be corrected, petitioner would be
ranked number nine and respondent Suyat would be ranked number eight.
Respondent Suyat filed before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en
banc an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene, which the latter
treated as a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. The COMELEC en banc
granted the motion/petition. Hence, the present petition.
In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court ruled that election cases
including pre-proclamation controversies should first be heard and decided
by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the Commission en banc if a
motion for reconsideration of the decision is filed. However, this rule applies
only in cases where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers, and not when it merely exercises purely administrative functions.
Accordingly, when the case demands only the exercise by the COMELEC of
its administrative functions, the COMELEC en banc can directly act on it in
the exercise of its constitutional function to decide questions affecting the
elections. The Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors in the case at bar
alleged an erroneous copying of figures from the election return to the
Statements of Votes by Precinct. Such an error merely requires a clerical
correction and demands only the exercise of the administrative Power of the
COMELEC. Hence, the Commission en banc properly assumed original
jurisdiction over the aforesaid petition.
The Court further ruled that the COMELEC has the discretion to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.

SYLLABUS

1. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL

COMMISSIONS; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; JURISDICTION. — Article IX-C of
the Constitution states in part that: "Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections
may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including
preproclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and
decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
shall be decided by the Commission en banc. " As stated in the provision,
and in line with the Court's recent pronouncement in Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,
election cases including pre-proclamation controversies should first be heard
and decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the commission en
banc if a motion for reconsideration of the division is filed. It must be noted
however that this provision applies only in cases where the COMELEC
exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and not when it merely
exercises purely administrative functions. This doctrine was laid out in
Castromayor v. COMELEC, and reiterated in subsequent cases. Accordingly,
when the case demands only the exercise by the COMELEC of its
administrative functions, such as the correction of a manifest mistake in the
addition of votes or an erroneous tabulation in the statement of votes, the
COMELEC en banc can directly act on it in the exercise of its constitutional
function to decide questions affecting elections.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE COMMISSION EN BANC HAS ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OVER CASES DEMANDING THE EXERCISE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE POWER OF THE COMMISSION; CASE AT BAR. — The Petition
for Correction of Manifest Errors in the case at bar alleges an erroneous
copying of figures from the election return to the Statement of Votes by
Precinct. Such an error in the tabulation of the results, which merely requires
a clerical correction without the necessity of opening ballot boxes or
examining ballots, demands only the exercise of the administrative power of
the COMELEC. Hence, the Commission en banc properly assumed original
jurisdiction over the aforesaid petition.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; HAS THE DISCRETION TO SUSPEND ITS RULES
OR ANY PORTION THEREOF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE — [T]he COMELEC
has the discretion to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest
of justice. Section 4, Rule I of the COMELEC Rules expressly provides that:
"SEC. 4. Suspension of the Rules. — In the interest of justice and in order to
obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the commission,
these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission."
The COMELEC therefore has authority to suspend the reglementary periods
provided by the rules, or the requirement of certification of non-forum
shopping for that matter, in the interest of justice and speedy resolution of
the cases before it. ... [T]he COMELEC is not constrained to dismiss a case
before it by reason of non-payment of filing fees. Section 18, Rule 40 the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 COMELEC Rules of Procedure states: "SEC. 18. Nonpayment of Prescribed
Fees . — If the fees above prescribed are not paid, the Commission may
refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action
or the proceeding." The use of the word "may" in the aforecited provision
readily shows that the COMELEC is conferred the discretion whether to
entertain the petition or not in case of non-payment of legal fees. And even
if it were not afforded such discretion, as discussed above, it is authorized to
suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS BASED ON ITS OWN ASSESSMENTS AND
DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, GENERALLY GIVEN CONCLUSIVE WEIGHT —
[F]actual findings of the COMELEC based on its own assessments and duly
supported by evidence, are given conclusive weight in the absence of
arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion.

DECISION

AZCUNA, J : p

For review before the Court is the instant petition for certiorari 1 with
prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ascribing
grave abuse of discretion to public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in issuing its en banc resolution dated October 24, 2002.
The antecedent facts, as summarized in the COMELEC resolution, 2 are
as follows:
[Respondent] Antonio Suyat and [petitioner] Alberto J. Jaramilla
both ran for the position of Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the
Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections.
On May 16, 2001, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta.
Cruz, proclaimed the winning candidates for the offices of Mayor,
Vice-Mayor and eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Bayan. The
Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation shows the following
results and ranking with respect to the members of the Sangguniang
Bayan, to wit:
Total Votes
Name of Candidates
Obtained

1. RAGUCOS, Ma. Luisa Laxamana 6,324

2. ABAYA, Juan Jr., Andaquig 6,013
3. GINES, Fidel Cudiamat 5,789
4. QUILOP, Renato Avila 5,227
5. BILIGAN, Osias Depdepen 5,130
6. RUIZ, Agustin Turgano 4,972
7. JARAMILLA, Alberto Jimeno 4,815
8. CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon 4,807
In the tabulated results issued by the Election Officer and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Chairperson of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz, it is
shown that [respondent Suyat] obtained Four thousand seven
hundred seventy nine (4,779) votes and was ranked no. 9.
Upon review by [respondent Suyat], he discovered that
[petitioner] was credited with only twenty three (23) votes per
Election Return from Precinct No. 34A1. However, when the figures
were forwarded to the Statement of Votes by Precinct, [petitioner]
was credited with seventy three (73) votes for Precinct No. 34A1 or
fifty (50) votes more than what he actually obtained. If the entry were
to be corrected, the affected candidates would be ranked as follows:
7. CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon 4,807
8. SUYAT, Antonio 4,779
9. JARAMILLA, Alberto 4,765
On June 13, 2001, respondent Suyat filed before the COMELEC en banc
an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Order to Reconvene, 3 which the latter
treated as a Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. Petitioner countered in
his Answer 4 that said petition should be dismissed for having been filed out
of time and for lack of the required certification of non-forum shopping.
On October 24, 2002, COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution,
the dispositive portion of which reads: 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion/Petition is
hereby GRANTED. The proclamation of Respondent ALBERTO J.
JARAMILLA [herein petitioner] is ANNULLED. A New Municipal Board of
Canvassers is hereby created composed of the following:
Atty. NELIA AUREUS — Chairman
Atty. MICHAEL D. DIONEDA — Vice Chairman
Atty. ALLEN FRANCIS F. ABAYA — Member
The New Board is hereby directed to immediately convene at
the Comelec Session Hall, Intramuros, Manila, after due notice to
parties and effect a correction in the entry in the Statement of Votes
by Precinct particularly the votes for Respondent Alberto Jaramilla
[herein petitioner], who should be credited with twenty three (23)
votes only. Thereafter, the New Board shall prepare a corrected
Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation on the basis of the New
Statement of Votes and proclaim the Petitioner [herein private
respondent Suyat] as the eighth (8th) Board Member of Sta. Cruz,
Ilocos Sur. Mr. Ireneo Habon Cortez shall be declared the 7th
Municipal Board Member. The New Board shall use the Comelec
copies of the election returns and Statement of Votes pertaining to
the instant case.
SO ORDERED.
Hence the present recourse by petitioner anchored on the following
grounds:
I. THAT THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ERRED IN NOT
DISMISSING THE CASE CONSIDERING THAT THE PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE COMELEC WAS FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD AS SET FORTH IN THE COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 II. THAT THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ERRED IN GIVING DUE
COURSE TO THE PETITION INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT
CONSIDERING THAT THE PETITION LACKED A CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING.
III. THAT THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ERRED IN NOT
DISMISSING THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE DOCKET OR
FILING FEE ON TIME. 6

Before discussing the merits, although not raised in the petition, the
Court deems it appropriate to discuss the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en
banc in election cases. Article IX-C of the Constitution states in part that:
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in
two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
be decided by the Commission en banc. 7
As stated in the provision, and in line with the Court's recent pronouncement
i n Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, 8 election cases including pre-proclamation
controversies should first be heard and decided by a division of the
COMELEC, and then by the commission en banc if a motion for
reconsideration of the division is filed.
It must be noted however that this provision applies only in cases
where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and
not when it merely exercises purely administrative functions. This doctrine
was laid out in Castromayor v. COMELEC, 9 and reiterated in subsequent
cases. 10 Accordingly, when the case demands only the exercise by the
COMELEC of its administrative functions, such as the correction of a manifest
mistake in the addition of votes or an erroneous tabulation in the statement
of votes, the COMELEC en banc can directly act on it in the exercise of its
constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections. 11
The Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors in the case at bar alleges
an erroneous copying of figures from the election return to the Statement of
Votes by Precinct. Such an error in the tabulation of the results, which
merely requires a clerical correction without the necessity of opening ballot
boxes or examining ballots, demands only the exercise of the administrative
power of the COMELEC. Hence, the Commission en banc properly assumed
original jurisdiction over the aforesaid petition. IEAacS

Now we proceed to the merits of the case.

Petitioner bewails the fact that the COMELEC took cognizance of
respondent Suyat's petition for correction despite its having been filed
beyond the 5-day reglementary period fixed in the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure and its lack of certification against forum-shopping. 12
Petitioner overlooks the fact that the COMELEC has the discretion to
suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice. Section 4,
Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules expressly provides that:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 SEC. 4. Suspension of the Rules. — In the interest of justice
and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending
before the commission, these rules or any portion thereof may be
suspended by the Commission.
The COMELEC therefore has authority to suspend the reglementary periods
provided by the rules, or the requirement of certification of non-forum
shopping for that matter, in the interest of justice and speedy resolution of
the cases before it. 13
Petitioner next points out respondent Suyat's omission to pay the
prescribed filing fees.
As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, the
COMELEC is not constrained to dismiss a case before it by reason of non-
payment of filing fees. 14 Section 18, Rule 40 the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure states:
SEC. 18. Nonpayment of Prescribed Fees. — If the fees
above prescribed are not paid, the Commission may refuse to take
action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the
proceeding. 15
The use of the word "may" in the aforecited provision readily shows that the
COMELEC is conferred the discretion whether to entertain the petition or not
in case of non-payment of legal fees. 16 And even if it were not afforded such
discretion, as discussed above, it is authorized to suspend its rules or any
portion thereof in the interest of justice. 17
It is noteworthy that petitioner only raised issues on the foregoing
technicalities, without questioning the COMELEC's finding of manifest error
in the tabulation of votes. Even at the COMELEC stage, his denial in his
Answer 18 was unsubstantiated by any rebuttal evidence to disprove the
submitted photocopies of the election returns and statement of votes, which
clearly showed the erroneous addition of 50 votes in his favor. The
COMELEC's unquestioned findings of fact are therefore sustained. The Court
reiterates that factual findings of the COMELEC based on its own
assessments and duly supported by evidence, are given conclusive weight in
the absence of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion. 19
Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the
end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be
defeated by mere technical objections. 20 Adherence to technicality that
would put a stamp on a palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable
result of frustrating the people's will, can never be countenanced. 21
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by public
respondent COMELEC, its Resolution en banc dated October 24, 2002 is
AFFIRMED. The petition is DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J ., is on official leave.
Footnotes
1. Filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2. Rollo , pp. 36-37.
3. Id., at 46-48.
4. Id., at 57-63.
5. Id., at 43-44.
6. Id., at 9-10.
7. Emphasis supplied.
8. G.R. No. 151216, July 18, 2003.
9. 250 SCRA 298 (1995).

10. Baytan v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003; O'hara v.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 148941-42, March 12, 2002; Canicosa v. COMELEC , 282
SCRA 512 (1997).
11. Canicosa v. COMELEC, supra , note 10 citing Castromayor v. COMELEC,
supra, note 9.
12. Section 5(2), Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE
provides:
Sec. 5. Pre-proclamation Controversies Which May Be Filed Directly
With the Commission. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) . . . If the petition is for correction, it must be filed not later than
five (5) days following the date of proclamation and must implead all
candidates who may be adversely affected thereby.
13. Barot v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 149147, June 18, 2003.
14. Rollo , p. 89.
15. Emphasis supplied.

16. Sunga v. COMELEC , 288 SCRA 76 (1998); Barot v. COMELEC , supra, note
13.

17. Barot v. COMELEC, supra, note 13.

18. Rollo , p. 59.
19. Alvarez v. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 434 (2001).
20. Tatlonghari v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 849 (1991).
21. Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, supra, note 8.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com