VOL.

315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 693

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
*

G.R. No. 135996. September 30, 1999.

EMILIANO R. “BOY” CARUNCHO III, petitioner, vs. THE

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and The Chairman ATTY.
CASIANO ATUEL, JR. and MEMBERS, ATTY. GRACE S.
BELVIS, DR. FLORENTINA R. LIZANO, City Board of
Canvassers, City of Pasig, respondents.

Election Law; Courts; Jurisdiction; Due process in quasi-judicial

proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing. The
proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been
notified of the motion to set aside his proclamation.—Petitioner initiated
this case through a motion to nullify the proclamation of Lanot as the
winner in the congressional race in Pasig City. Named respondents in the
motion were the individual members of the Board of Canvassers in that city.
The proclaimed winner was not included among the respondents. For that
reason alone, the COMELEC should have been forewarned of a procedural
lapse in the motion that would affect the substantive rights of the winning
candidate, if not the electorate. Due process in quasi-judicial proceedings
before the COMELEC requires due notice and hearing. The proclamation of
a winning candidate cannot be annulled if he has not been notified of the
motion to set aside his proclamation. It was only the intervention of Lanot in
SPC 98-123, which the Second Division of the COMELEC allowed, which
cured the procedural lapse that could have affected the popular will of the
electorate.
Same; Same; Same; By real interest is meant a present substantial
interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
subordinate, or consequential interest.—Petitioner again failed to implead
Lanot in the instant petition for certiorari. In this connection, Section 2, Rule
3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. By real
interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. As
the winning candidate whose proclamation is sought to be nullified,

_______________
 * EN BANC.

694

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

Henry P. Lanot is a real party in interest in these proceedings. The

COMELEC and the Board of Canvassers of Pasig City are mere nominal
parties whose decision should be defended by the real party in interest.
Same; Same; Same; Quasi-judicial agencies should be joined as public
respondents but it is the duty of the private respondent to appear and defend
such agency.—Quasi-judicial agencies should be joined as public
respondents but it is the duty of the private respondent to appear and defend
such agency. That duty cannot be fulfilled by the real party in interest such
as the proclaimed winning candidate in a proceeding to annul his
proclamation if he is not even named as private respondent in the petition.
Ordinarily, the non-joinder of an indispensable party or the real party in
interest is not by itself a ground for the dismissal of the petition. The court
before which the petition is filed must first require the joinder of such party.
It is the noncompliance with said order that would be a ground for the
dismissal of the petition. However, this being an election case which should
be resolved with dispatch considering the public interest involved, the Court
has not deemed it necessary to require that Henry P. Lanot be impleaded as a
respondent in this case.
Same; Same; Same; An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and
cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass cannot be
reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered
and none is omitted.—An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot
be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of
the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is
omitted. However, this is true only where the election returns missing or not
counted will affect the results of the election. It bears stressing that in the
case at bar, the COMELEC has categorically found that the election returns
which were not counted by respondent canvassers represented only 4,400
votes. To be sure, this number will not affect the result of the election
considering that Lanot’s lead over petitioner was already 17,971 votes.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

695
 VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 695
Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

Jurado Law Office for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Petitioner Emiliano R. Caruncho III was the candidate of the Liberal

Party for the congressional seat in the lone district of Pasig City at
the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections. The other candidates
were: Arnulfo G. Acedera, Jr. (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP); Marcelino P.
Arias (Nacionalista Party); Roberto C. Bassig (Independent);
Esmeraldo T. Batacan (PDR-LM Coalition); Henry P. Lanot
(LAMMP); Francisco C. Rivera, Jr. (PRP/PDR); Elpidio G. Tuason
(Independent), and Raoul V. Victorino (Liberal Party/LAMMP).
At 9:00 o’clock in the morning of May 12, 1998, respondent
Pasig City Board of Canvassers composed of Atty. Casiano Atuel, Jr.
as Chairman, Atty. Grace S. Belvis as Vice-Chairman, and Dr.
Florentina Lizano as Member, started to canvass the election returns.
The canvass was proceeding smoothly when the Board received
intelligence reports that one of the candidates for the congressional
race, retired General Arnulfo Acedera, and his supporters, might
disrupt and stop the canvassing.
At exactly 6:00 o’clock in the evening of May 14, 1998, General
Acedera and his supporters stormed the Caruncho Stadium in San
Nicolas, Pasig City, where the canvassing of election returns was
being conducted. They allegedly forced themselves into the
canvassing area, breaking a glass door in the process. As
pandemonium broke loose, the police fired warning shots causing
those present in the canvassing venue, including the members of the
Board and canvassing units, to scamper for safety. The canvassing
personnel exited through the backdoors bringing with them the
Election Returns they were canvassing and tallying as well as the
Statement of Votes that they were accomplishing. They entrusted
these documents to the City Treasurer’s Office and the Pasig
Employment Service Office (PESO). Election documents and

696

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

paraphernalia were scattered all over the place when the intruders
left.
The following day, May 15, 1998, the sub-canvassing units
recovered the twenty-two (22) Election Returns and the Statement of
Votes from the Treasurer’s Office and the PESO. However, page 2 of
each of the 22 election returns, which contained the names of
candidates for congressmen, had been detached and could not be
found. An investigation was conducted to pinpoint liability for the
loss but it yielded negative result. Hence, the Board secured
1 proper
authority from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), through
Election Director for the National Capital Region Atty. Teresita
Suarez, for the reconstitution of the missing page by making use of
the other copies of the election returns, particularly the provincial
copy or the copy in the ballot boxes placed therein by the Board of
Election Inspectors.
At 2:40 a.m. of May 17, 1998, the Board, satisfied that it had
finished canvassing the 1,491 election returns from as many
clustered precincts, proclaimed Henry P. Lanot 2as the winner in the
congressional race for the lone district of Pasig. The votes obtained
by the leading three candidates were: Henry P. Lanot—60,914 votes;
Emiliano R. “Boy” Caruncho III—42,942 votes, and Arnulfo
Acedera—36,139 votes. The winner, Lanot, led his closest rival,
Caruncho, by 17,971 votes.
However, on May 21, 1998, petitioner Caruncho filed a “Motion
3

to Nullify Proclamation on the Basis of Incomplete Returns” with

the COMELEC. He alleged that the Board had proceeded with the
proclamation of Henry Lanot as the win-

_______________

1 Footnote 1 of COMELEC en banc Resolution dated October 1, 1998 in SCC 98-

123 states: “Acting on the Memorandum of NCR Director Atty. Teresita C. Suarez
dated May 12, 1998, Chairman Pardo as Commissioner-In-Charge of NCR, approved
opening of ballot boxes and retrieval of election returns in cases where all copies of
the election returns were all placed inside the ballot boxes.”
2 Record of SPC 98-123, p. 72.
3 Rollo, p. 32.

697

VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 697

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

ning congressional candidate even though one hundred forty-seven

(147) election returns involving about 30,000 votes, were still not
canvassed. He prayed that the COMELEC en banc declare the
proclamation null and void and that the Board of Canvassers be
directed to convene and reopen the ballot boxes to recount the votes
of the candidates for the House of Representatives and thereupon
proclaim the winner. On June 1, 1998, petitioner filed an amended
motion to correct some errors in the listing of precincts under
paragraph 10, pages
4 2 and 3, and paragraph 12, pages 3 and 4, of the
original motion.
 On June 8, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC issued
an Order requiring respondent Pasig City Board of Canvassers to
comment on the amended motion to nullify Lanot’s proclamation. In
his comment filed on June 23, 1998, respondent Atty. Casiano G.
Atuel, Jr. admitted the disruption and stoppage of the canvass of
election returns on May 11, 1998 but asserted that there were only
twenty-two (22) election returns, not 147 as claimed by Caruncho,
that were missing but these were eventually recovered. The Board
stated in part:

“x x x. Contrary to the insinuation of Atty. Irene D. Jurado, only 22 Election

Returns were reported missing. On the following day, May 15, 1998, the
sub-canvassing units have recovered the 22 missing Election Returns and
the Statement of Votes from the Treasurer’s Office and from the Pasig
Employment Service Office (PESO). There are no missing election returns.
That to the surprise of the Board and of the 22 canvassing units, they
found out that Page 2 of the 22 Election Returns they recovered were
detached and missing. We wish to inform the Commission that Page 2 of the
Local Election Returns contained the name of candidates for Congressman.
We conducted investigation on who did the detachment of Page 2 of the 22
Election Returns. However, nobody from the Treasurer’s Office nor from
the PESO admitted that they committed such election offense.

_______________

4 Ibid., p. 52.

698

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

It is impossible that 147 Election Returns were missing. The COMELEC

Instruction is very specific that only Election Returns to be canvassed are
supposed to be brought out from the Ballot Boxes containing still
uncanvassed Election Returns. The instruction further stated that once it was
read by the Board, it will be stamped ‘READ’ and then deliver the same
(sic) to the 22 sub-canvassing units. Sub-canvassing units cannot get another
Election Returns unless the same is finished, tallied, stamped as
‘CANVASSED,’ and submit the same to the Secretariat and placed inside a
separate ballot boxes with stamped ‘READ’ and ‘CANVASSED’ (sic)
sealed with metal seals, padlocked, chained and padlocked again. It was at
this time where (sic) the sub-canvassing units will get another Election
Returns from the Board for tally and so on. Sub-canvassing units are not
allowed to canvass 2 or more Election Returns at one time. This was the
very reason why only 22 Election Returns were reported missing but were
recovered without Page 2.
 That at the very start of the proceeding, the leading candidates for
Congressman were as follows:

HENRY LANOT — FIRST

EMILIANO CARUNCHO — SECOND
ARNULFO ACEDERA — THIRD

As the canvass goes on, Henry Lanot was leading Caruncho by

thousands. Very few Election Returns have Caruncho leading and even if
leading, the lead was only a few votes.
Proper authorities from the Commission on Elections was secured
through Atty. Teresita C. Suarez, Election Director for National Capital
Region for the purpose of making use of other copies of the Election
Returns particularly the Provincial Copy or the Copy in the Ballot Boxes.
Fortunately, the authorities arrived on time so that the Board of Canvassers
waste(d) no time in opening the Ballot Boxes to retrieve the copies from the
Board of Canvassers left inside the Ballot Boxes by the careless Board of
Election Inspectors. Provincial copies were used as well in the reconstitution
of the missing page 2 of the 22 recovered Election Returns.
That there was no truth on the insinuation made by Atty. Irene D. Jurado
that there were 147 Election Returns which were not canvassed which will
affect the result of election for Emiliano Caruncho. The Board did
everything to have all election returns accounted forth (sic). We let no stone
unturned before we finally

699

VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 699

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

come to the conclusion. That we have finished canvassing the 1,491

Election Returns and proclaimed the winning candidates.

That granting without admitting that there were missing Election Returns
which were uncanvassed, and if ordered canvass(ed), the more Lanot will
widen his lead because the trend was that Henry Lanot’s lead swollen (sic)
as more election returns were canvassed.
That for the first time, I am revealing this shocking fact to the
Commission on Elections that on two (2) occasions, an unidentified persons
(sic) talked to me at the unholy hours of the night 2 days while canvassing
was going on and offered me TWO MILLION (P2,000,000.00) PESOS in
cold cash just to proclaim ‘BOY’ as the elected Congressman. I declined the
offer and told the man that I am a straight man, I am on the level, I have a
family and I am about to retire. x x x.
That at 2:40 A.M. of May 17, 1998, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed
all the winning candidates for Local positions. As to the Congressman, the
following results are as follows:
HENRY LANOT — 60,914 votes
EMILIANO ‘BOY’ CARUNCHO — 42,942 votes
ARNULFO ACEDERA — 36,139 votes

The lead of Henry Lanot5 from Emiliano Caruncho was 17,971 votes.
x x x x x x x x x.”
6

On June 24,
7 1998, the COMELEC Second Division promulgated a

Resolution decreeing as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Commission:

1. Declares that the proclamation of the winning congressional

candidate of Pasig City as NULL AND VOID;
2. Orders that the respondents-Members of the City Board of
Canvassers of Pasig City to RECONVENE at the Session Hall of
the

_______________

5 Rollo, pp. 89-91; Record, pp. 34-37.

6 Composed of Commissioners Julio F. Desamito and Japal M. Guiani.
7 Rollo, p. 59.

700

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

Commission and use the Comelec copy of the one hundred forty-
seven (147) election returns above-mentioned and CANVASS said
authentic copy of the election returns and include the results thereof
with the tally of all election returns previously canvassed and,
thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning candidate; and
3. Orders the Law Department of this Commission to investigate
candidate Arnulfo Acedera and if after the investigation, the
evidence so warrant, to file the necessary charges against him.

SO ORDERED.”

Subsequently, on June 26, 1998, respondent Board filed a

“Supplemental Comment” raising the following matters: (a) the
COMELEC had no jurisdiction over the case under Section 242 of
the Omnibus Election Code; (b) petitioner failed to record his
objections to the elections returns and the certificate of canvass in
the minutes of the proceedings of the Board; and (c) the winning
candidate, Henry 8Lanot, was not impleaded in the motion to nullify
his proclamation.
 On July 8, 1998, proclaimed winning candidate 9 Henry Lanot
filed a motion for leave to intervene in the case. He also prayed for
the reconsideration of the June 24, 1998 Resolution of the
COMELEC Second Division and for referral of the case 10 to the
COMELEC en banc. In his motion for reconsideration that was
attached to said motion to intervene, movant Lanot argued that
failure to notify him of the case was fatal as he was a real party in
interest who must be impleaded therein. He also alleged that under
the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7166, the COMELEC had no
jurisdiction over the case and that the Resolution of June 24, 1998
was “not based on facts.” 11

That same day, petitioner, represented by new counsel, filed a

motion praying for the “formation” of a new Board of Canvassers on
account of the June 24, 1998 Resolution of the

_______________

8 Record, p. 55.
9 Ibid., p. 58.
10 Ibid., p. 61.
11 Froilan M. Bacungan and Associates.

701

VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 701

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
12

COMELEC Second Division. The following day, the COMELEC

Second Division issued an order setting the case for hearing and
postponing 13the “reconvening of the City Board of Canvassers of
Pasig City.” On July 15, 1998, movant Lanot filed an opposition to
the motion for the formation of a new Board of Canvassers on the
ground that the Resolution of June 24, 1998 is null and void for the
following reasons: (a) he was not notified of the proceedings and
therefore his right to due process was violated; (b) said resolution
had not become final and executory by his filing of a motion for
reconsideration; and (c) the case was no longer a pre-proclamation
controversy but an electoral protest under the jurisdiction of 14the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, not the COMELEC.
At the hearing on July 21, 1998, the COMELEC Second Division
ordered the filing of memorandum. Movant Lanot, however,
manifested that he was no longer filing a memorandum. Thus, the
COMELEC, ruled that “with or without said memorandum,”
15 the
case would be deemed submitted for resolution. Meanwhile, on
July 27, 1998, 16petitioner filed an opposition to Lanot’s motion for
reconsideration
17 after which Lanot filed his comment on the
opposition.
 On September 28, 1998, the COMELEC Second Division
granted Lanot’s motion for intervention and
18 elevated his motion for

reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc.19

Thereafter, the COMELEC en banc promulgated a Resolution

dated October 1, 1998 reconsidering the Resolution of

_______________

12 Record, p. 85.
13 Ibid., p. 97.
14 Ibid., p. 103.
15 Ibid., p. 112.
16 Ibid., p. 113.
17 Ibid., p. 122.
18 Ibid., p. 131.
19 Per COMELEC Chairman Bernardo P. Pardo, with Commissioners Julio F.
Desamito, Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, Japal M. Gui

702

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

the COMELEC Second Division and dismissing petitioner’s

amended motion (petition) to nullify the20 proclamation on the basis
of incomplete returns for lack of merit. Relying on facts narrated
by the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in its comment on the motion
to nullify the proclamation, the COMELEC en banc found:

“Thus, the board of canvassers did everything to have all election returns
accounted for, and finished canvassing all the election returns of 1,491
clustered precincts of Pasig City. On the basis of the canvass, the board
proclaimed the winning candidates for local positions. As to the winning
candidate for congressman, the results were as follows:

Henry P. Lanot — 60,914 votes

Emiliano ‘Boy’ Caruncho — 42,942 votes
Arnulfo Acedera — 36,139 votes

However, granting arguendo that there were missing twenty-two (22)

election returns involving about 4,400 votes, the same no longer affect the
results of the election as candidate Henry P. Lanot obtained the highest
number of votes, with a lead of 17,971 votes over his closest rival, Emiliano
‘Boy’ Caruncho. The board of canvassers duly proclaimed candidate Henry
P. Lanot as the winning representative of the lone district of Pasig City.
Consequently, we find without basis petitioner’s allegation that the
proclamation of Henry P. Lanot was based on an incomplete canvass. We
carefully examined the Comelec copies of the Statement of Votes and found
no truth to the assertion that there were one hundred forty seven (147)
election returns not canvassed.”

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Petitioner seeks to nullify respondent COMELEC en banc’s
Resolution of October 1, 1998, contending that said body acted in
excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in
overruling his claim that 147 election returns involving about thirty
thousand (30,000) votes were not canvassed. Petitioner

_______________

ani, Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Abdul Gani M. Marohombsar, Al Hadj

concurring. Commissioner Manolo B. Gorospe took no part.
20 Rollo, p. 73.

703

VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 703

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

argued that it was enough reason for contesting the proclamation of

Lanot as winner under an incomplete canvass. However, as in the
proceedings before the COMELEC, petitioner failed to implead in
the instant petition the proclaimed winning candidate, Lanot.
The petition must be dismissed.
Petitioner initiated this case through a motion to nullify the
proclamation of Lanot as the winner in the congressional race in
Pasig City. Named respondents in the motion were the individual
members of the Board of Canvassers in that city. The proclaimed
winner was not included among the respondents. For that reason
alone, the COMELEC should have been forewarned of a procedural
lapse in the motion that would affect the substantive rights of the
winning candidate, if not the electorate. Due process in quasi-
judicial 21proceedings before the COMELEC requires due notice and
hearing. The proclamation of a winning candidate cannot be
annulled if he22 has not been notified of the motion to set aside his
proclamation. It was only the intervention of Lanot in SPC 98-123,
which the Second Division of the COMELEC allowed, which cured
the procedural lapse that could have affected the popular will of the
electorate.
However, petitioner again failed to implead Lanot in the instant
petition for certiorari. In this connection, Section 2, Rule 3 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. By
real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished
from a mere expectancy 23 or a future, contingent, subordinate, or

consequential interest. As the winning candidate whose

proclamation is sought to be nullified, Henry P. Lanot is a real party
in interest in

_______________

21 Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106271, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 782,
792-793.
22 Jagunap v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 53062 & 53345, April 24, 1981, 104 SCRA
204, 213.
23 De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 254, 265; 277 SCRA 478, 486 (1997).

704

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

these proceedings. The COMELEC and the Board of Canvassers of

Pasig City are mere nominal parties whose decision should be
defended by the real party in interest, pursuant to Rule 65 of the said
Rules:

“SEC. 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.—When the petition filed

relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency,
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as
private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or
respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings
in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear
and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public
respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs
awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the
private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial
agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public
respondent or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition is
pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or
comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If the case is elevated to a
higher court by either party, the public respondents shall be included
therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise specifically directed
by the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedings therein.”
(Italics supplied.)

Hence, quasi-judicial agencies should be joined as public

respondents but it is 24the duty of the private respondent to appear and
defend such agency. That duty cannot be fulfilled by the real party
in interest such as the proclaimed winning candidate in a proceeding
to annul his proclamation if he is not even named as private
respondent in the petition. Ordinarily, the nonjoinder of an
indispensable party or the real party in interest is not by itself a
ground for the dismissal of the petition. The court before which the
petition is filed must first require the joinder of such party. It is the
noncompliance with said order that would be a ground for the
dismissal of

_______________

24 FERIA, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Annotated), 1997 ed., p. 267.

705

VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 705

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
25

the petition. However, this being an election case which should be

resolved with dispatch considering the public interest involved, the
Court has not deemed it necessary to require that Henry P. Lanot be
impleaded as a respondent in this case.
A crucial issue in this petition is what body has jurisdiction over
a proclamation controversy involving a member of the House of
Representatives. The 1987 Constitution cannot be more explicit in
this regard. Article VI thereof states:

“Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. x x x.”

The foregoing constitutional provision is reiterated in Rule 14 of the

1991 Revised Rules of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives, to wit:

“RULE 14. Jurisdiction.—The Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all

contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the Members
of the House of Representatives.”
26

In the recent case of Rasul v. COMELEC and Aquino-Oreta, the

Court, in interpreting the aforesaid constitutional provision, stressed
the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunal’s jurisdiction over its
members, thus:

“Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution as well as Section 250 of

the Omnibus Election Code provide that ‘(t)he Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of their respective Members. x x x.” In Javier v. Comelec (144 SCRA 194),
this Court interpreted the phrase ‘election, returns and qualifications’ as
follows:

_______________
 25 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
26 G.R. No. 134142, August 24, 1999, 313 SCRA 18.

706

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections

‘The phrase “election, returns and qualifications” should be interpreted in its totality
as referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. But if it is
necessary to specify, we can say that “election” referred to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting
and counting of the votes; “returns” to the canvass of the returns and the
proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the composition of the
board of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and “qualifications”
to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed
winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of
candidacy.’

The word ‘sole’ in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and
Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code underscore the exclusivity of the
Tribunal’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.
Inasmuch as petitioner contests the proclamation of herein respondent
Teresa Aquino-Oreta as the 12th winning senatorial candidate, it is the
Senate Electoral Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the
complaint of petitioner. x x x.”

In the same vein, considering that petitioner questions the

proclamation of Henry Lanot as the winner in the congressional race
for the sole district of Pasig City, his remedy should have been to
file an electoral protest
27 with the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET).
Even granting arguendo that the thrust of petitioner’s case is to
question the integrity of the election returns or the validity of the
“incomplete canvass” as the basis for Henry Lanot’s proclamation,
and not the proclamation itself, still, the instant petition is devoid of
merit.
The factual question of how many election returns were missing
as a consequence of the disruption of the canvassing of election
returns has been definitely resolved by the COMELEC en banc.
Thus, raising the same issue before this Court is

_______________

27 Pangilinan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 105278, November 18, 1993, 228 SCRA
36.

707
 VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 707
Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
28

pointless because this Court is not a trier of facts. The facts

established below show that all the legal steps necessary to carry out
the reconstitution of the missing page 2 of the twenty-two (22)
election returns have been followed. Proper authorization for the
reconstitution of that page was secured from the COMELEC. The
reconstitution was based on the provincial copy of the election
returns that was retrieved from the sealed ballot boxes. For his part,
petitioner failed to have the anomaly recorded in the minutes of
proceedings of respondent Board as required by Section 15 of
Republic Act No. 7166. Respondent Board, therefore, observed the
following provisions of the Omnibus Election Code:

“SEC. 233. When the election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed.—In
case its copy of the election returns is missing, the board of canvassers shall,
by messenger or otherwise, obtain such missing election returns from the
board of election inspectors concerned, or if said returns have been lost or
destroyed, the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of the Commission,
may use any of the authentic copies of said election returns or a certified
copy of said election returns issued by the Commission, and forthwith direct
its representative to investigate the case and immediately report the matter
to the Commission.
The board of canvassers, notwithstanding the fact that not all the election
returns have been received by it, may terminate the canvass and proclaim
the candidates elected on the basis of the available election returns if the
missing election returns will not affect the results of the election.”

Granting that the proclamation was made without taking into

account the twenty-two (22) election returns, still, the COMELEC
did not abuse its discretion. The election returns represented only
4,400 votes. That number cannot affect the result of the election
because Henry Lanot’s lead over his closest rival, herein petitioner,
was 17,971 votes. As the second paragraph of Section 233 of the
Omnibus Election Code

_______________

28 David-Chan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1140, 1148; 268 SCRA 677, 686
(1997).

708

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caruncho III vs. Commission on Elections
aforequoted states, the Board of Canvassers could have totally
disregarded the twenty-two (22) election returns and legally
proclaimed Lanot as the winner in the election in Pasig City for
Member of the House of Representatives.
An incomplete canvass of votes
29 is illegal and cannot be the basis
of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the
true vote of30 the electorate unless all returns are considered and none
is omitted. However, this is true only where the election returns
missing or not counted will affect the results of the election. It bears
stressing that in the case at bar, the COMELEC has categorically
found that the election returns which were not counted by
respondent canvassers represented only 4,400 votes. To be sure, this
number will not affect the result of the election considering that
Lanot’s lead over petitioner was already 17,971 votes.
On the whole, this Court finds that respondent COMELEC did
not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed
Resolution of October 1, 1998 dismissing petitioner’s motion to
nullify the proclamation of Henry P. Lanot as Member of the House
of Representatives for the lone district of Pasig City.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena and Gonzaga-
Reyes, JJ., concur.

_______________

29 Datu Sukarno Samad v. Commission on Elections, 224 SCRA 631, 642

(1993); Tiglao v. Commission on Elections, 31 SCRA 719, 729 (1970); Mutuc v.
Commission on Elections, 22 SCRA 662, 666 (1968); Demafiles v. Commission on
Elections, 21 SCRA 1462, 1468 (1967).
30 Duremdes v. Commission on Elections, 178 SCRA 746, 758 (1989); citing
Datu Sinsuat v. Pendatun, L-31501, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630.

709

VOL. 315, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 709

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc.

Pardo, J., No part. Was Comelec Chairman.

Petition for certiorari dismissed.

Notes.—Fact that there is a “huge discrepancy” between the

result of the canvass and that of the revision is no proof that the
Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying his
request for additional time to conduct a technical examination of
 election documents and to have his witnesses examine the ballots
before requiring them to make their affidavits. (Bulaong vs.
Commission on Elections, 241 SCRA 180 [1995])
The COMELEC exercises direct supervision and control over the
proceedings before the Board of Canvassers. (Mastura vs.
Commission on Elections, 285 SCRA 493 [1998])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.