Lee V Comele

1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 363

Lee vs. Commission on Elections
*
G.R. No. 157004. July 4, 2003.
SALLY A. LEE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS and LEOVIC R. DIONEDA, respondents.
Election Law; Commission on Elections; Election Returns;

Doubt arises as to the authenticity of the returns and the manner
of their preparation, specially in this case where a party watcher
was allowed to take part in the preparation of the election return.
—Votes for an important position such as congressman do not
simply vanish into thin air. Those who are mandated by law to
account for such votes, if mistakenly omitted, are at least
expected to give a fairly reasonable account of why and how they
have been omitted. Absent such explanation, doubt arises as to
the authenticity of the returns and the manner of their
preparation, specially in this case where a party watcher was
allowed to take part in the preparation of the election return.
Same; Same; Same; Motion for Reconsideration; The period
for the unsatisfied party to move for reconsideration can be
exercised from her actual receipt of a copy of the resolution in
question.—Further, the doctrine laid down in the case of Lindo v.
Comelec (194 SCRA 25) would have supported the proposition
that the additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC Rules
on advance notice of promulgation does not form part of the
process of promulgation and that the failure to serve such notice
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016830fa95a8a23e8028003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/21
in advance did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did not
vitiate the validity of the decision nor of the promulgation, as the
period for the unsatisfied party to move for reconsideration can be
exercised—not from the date of promulgation, as misconstrued by
petitioner, but from her actual receipt of a copy of the resolution
in question.
Same; Same; Same; Since the return was incomplete for it
lacked the data as to provincial and congressional candidates, the
applicable provision would be Section 234 of the Omnibus Election
Code which deals with material defects in election returns.—As to
the election return for Precinct No. 20-A, we ruled that the
COMELEC erred in resorting to the Certificate of Votes in
excluding the return in said precinct. Since the return was
incomplete for it lacked the data as to provincial and
congressional candidates, the applicable provision would be
Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which deals with
material defects in election returns. Thus, we ruled that the
COMELEC should have first determined the integrity of the
ballot box, ordered the opening thereof and recounted the ballots
therein after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots is
intact. We then
_______________
* EN BANC.
364
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
directed the COMELEC to issue another Order in accordance

with said Decision.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

De Lima & Menez Law Offices and Laguna, Fortes,
Balmaceda for petitioners.
Brillantes, Navarro, Jumamil, Arcilla, Escolin,
Martinez & Vivero Law Offices for private respondent.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari with prayer for

a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary
injunction under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure seeking1 to set aside the February 11, 2003 En
Banc Resolution of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in SPC No. 01-124.
Sally A. Lee (petitioner) and Leovie R. Dioneda (private
respondent) were candidates for mayor of Sorsogon City,
Sorsogon in the May 14, 2001 elections.
During the canvassing of the election returns, counsel
for private respondent objected to the inclusion of Election
Return No. 41150266 for Precinct No. 28A2 in barangay
Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City on the grounds that 1) no
entries were made for the position of congressman, and 2)
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino 2
(LDP) watchers were
utilized to till up election returns.
In her opposition to private respondent’s objection,
petitioner alleged that 1) the omitted entry in the election
return pertains to the position of congressman which
cannot be a subject of preproclamation controversy, 2) the
utilization of the watchers, who were under the direct
supervision of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), was
limited only to the filling up of the entries affecting the
party-list and justified by the severe lack of personnel to

perform the task, and 3) the alleged 3
defect does not affect
the integrity of the election return.
_______________
1 Rollo at pp. 76-81.

2 Id., at p. 103.
3 Id., at p. 130.
365
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 365

On May 18, 2001, the Board of Canvassers (BOC), finding

that the 1) questioned election return was clear and
regular on its face, 2) there was no pre-proclamation for
members of the House of Representatives and party list,
and 3) the grounds relied upon by private respondent are
all directed against the proceedings of the BEI and4
not the
BOC, ruled for the inclusion of the return. Private
respondent thereupon filed 5
on the same day a notice of
appeal of the BOC ruling.
In the meantime, or on May 19, 2001, the BOC
proclaimed 6the winning candidates, including petitioner as
city mayor.
Private respondent thus
7
filed on May 23, 2001 before the
COMELEC a petition, docketed as SPC No. 01-124,
assailing the ruling of the BOC and praying for the
exclusion of the questioned election return and the
annulment of petitioner’s proclamation.
8
Petitioner filed her answer to the COMELEC petition,
praying for its dismissal.
9
By Resolution of January 10, 2003, the COMELEC
Second Division granted the petition of private respondent
and accordingly excluded the questioned return from the

canvass and nullified the proclamation of petitioner. The
dispositive portion of the resolution reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.

The order of respondent Board dated May 18, 2001 including
Election Return No. 41150266 from Precinct No. 28A2 of
Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City in the May 14, 2001 Elections
canvass of Sorsogon City is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Said election return is hereby excluded from the May 14,
2001 Elections canvass of Sorsogon City. Further, the
proclamation of private respondent Sally Lee on May 19,
2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID ab initio pursuant
to Section 20 (i) of RA 7166.
A new City Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon City is hereby
constituted to be composed of the following COMELEC lawyers:
1. Atty. Nelia Aureus—Chairperson
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 130-131.

5 Id., at p. 132.
6 Id., at p. 133.
7 Id., at pp. 85-101.
8 Id., at pp. 134-149.
9 Id., at 59-73; Presiding Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion dissents.
366

2. Atty. Allen Francis Abaya—Vice-Chairperson

3. Atty. Emilio Santos—Secretary
The new City Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon City is hereby
directed to prepare a new Statement of votes for the position of
mayor of Sorsogon City excluding the election return from Precinct

No. 28A2 of Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City and, based on said
canvass in the new Statement of Votes, proceed to proclaim the
winning candidate for mayor of Sorsogon City.
The original City Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon City is
hereby directed to transmit to the new Board all COMELEC
forms and documents used in the canvassing including the
Board’s copies of all election returns canvassed in the May 14,
2001 Elections in Sorsogon City.
Finally, the Law Department is directed to conduct the
necessary investigation of the members of the BEI of Precinct No.
28A2 of Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City for the possible commission
of election offenses.
SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis and italics supplied)
10
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC
Second Division January 10, 2003 Resolution11
was denied
by the COMELEC En Banc, by Resolution of February 11,
2003 the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission En

Banc DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
The Resolution of the Second Division promulgated on January
10, 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED.
The New City Board of Canvassers of Sorsogon City
constituted by said Resolution is hereby ORDERED to convene
immediately, prepare a new Statement of Votes excluding the
election returns from Precinct No. 28A[2], Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon
City, and on the basis of the new Statement of Votes, proclaim the
winning candidate for mayor of Sorsogon City.
The original City Board of Canvassers is directed to transmit
to the new City Board of Canvassers the COMELEC documents
they used in their canvass. In the event however that the old City
Board of Canvassers, for any reason, fail to deliver to the new
City Board of Canvassers the COMELEC documents used in the
canvassing, specifically the old statement of votes and the election
return for Precinct No. 28A[2], prior to date of canvass, the new
Board is hereby authorized to use the COMELEC copy of said

documents.
This resolution is immediately executory.
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 150-195.

11 Id., at pp. 76-81.
367
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 367

SO ORDERED.”
Hence, the present petition, alleging that:
I.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GO

BEYOND OR BEHIND ELECTION RETURNS AND
INVESTIGATE ELECTION IRREGULARITIES IN PRE-
PROCLAMATION CONTROVERSY.
II.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS

DISCRETION WHEN IT RENDERED THE ASSAILED
RESOLUTIONS DESPITE THE CLEAR AND APPARENT LACK
OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE SAME.
III.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED PROCEDURAL

LAPSES IN THE PROMULGATION OF THE ASSAILED
RESOLUTIONS
12
WHICH AFFECTS THE FAIRNESS
STANDARD.
On February
13
18, 2003, this Court issued a Status Quo Ante
Order enjoining the COMELEC to observe the status quo
prevailing before the filing of the petition and refrain from
implementing the assailed January 10, 2003 and February
11, 2003 Resolutions until further orders from this Court.
Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation

controversy.—The following shall be proper issues that may be
raised in a preproclamation controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceeding of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete,
contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or
in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections
233, 234, 235, and 236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats,
coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or
not authentic; and
_______________
12 Id., at p. 26.
13 Id., at pp. 224-225.
368

(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling

places were canvassed, the results of which materially affected
the standing of the aggrieved candidate or candidates. (Emphasis
supplied)
On the first assigned error, petitioner argues that as the

case at bar is a pre-proclamation controversy, the
COMELEC is “restricted to an examination of the election
returns and is without jurisdiction to go [beyond]
14
or behind
them and investigate election irregularities,”
15
citing the
case of Loong v. Commission on Elections which held:
xxx
We have recently reiterated the Dianalan and Dimaporo
rulings in the case of Alfonso v. Commission on Elections,
promulgated in June, 1994. The prevailing doctrine in this
jurisdiction, therefore, is that as long as the returns
appear to be authentic and duly accomplished in their face,
the Board of Canvassers cannot look beyond or behind them
to verify the allegations of irregularities in the casting or
the counting of the votes. Corollarily, technical
examination of voting paraphernalia involving analysis
and comparison of voters’ signatures and thumbprints
thereon is prohibited in preproclamation cases which are
mandated by law to be expeditiously resolved without
involving evidence aliunde and examination of voluminous
documents which take up much time and cause delay in
defeat of the public policy underlying the summary nature
of pre-proclamation controversies.
x x x (Italics in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)
Petitioner’s argument is bereft of merit.

The doctrine cited by petitioner presupposes that the
returns “appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on
their face.” Where, as in the case at bar, there is a prima
facie showing that the return is not genuine, several entries
having been omitted in the questioned election return, the
doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC is thus not
powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of
the questioned election return.
As to the second error raised by petitioner, she claims
that contrary to the findings of the COMELEC, there is no
evidence on record that an LDP watcher participated in the

preparation of the
_______________
14 Id., at p. 27.
15 257 SCRA 1 (1996).
369
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 369

questioned election return. She posits that the omission of

entries was not done with malice or bad faith nor meant to
subvert the true will of the people, and that the election
return in question is clear and regular on its face, duly
authenticated by the signatures and thumbmarks of the six
watchers and all the members of the BEI. Finally, she
posits that an incomplete election return is not necessarily
spurious, 16manufactured or fraudulent to necessitate its
exclusion.
While the BOC indeed found the questioned election
return clear and regular on its face, it is not conclusive on
the COMELEC nor on this Court in light of what
transpired during the proceedings before the BOC in which
the members of the BEI were examined and gave the
following explanations behind the omission of entries for
the position of congressman:
xxx
APP DIMAANO: Ito ba ang mga papeles o election return

na inyong ginawa sa presinto.
MS. LADUB: Opo.
APP DIMAANO: Opo. Ngayon, page one tungkol senators,
okay. Sa party list, meron kayong inilagay na resulta ng
botohan. Punta tayo sa page one noong local

positions, tignan nyo po sa parte ng congressman
kung ano ang nakalagay. Kayo po una—kayo po
Ginang Jamisal.
MS. JAMISAL: Wala ho.
APP DIMAANO: Wala ho. Kayo po Gina Labayo.
MS. LABAYO: Wala ho.
APP DIMAANO: Wala ho. Kayo ho Ladub—Ginang
Ladub.
MS. LADUB. Wala ho.
APP DIMAANO. Okay, doon sa ibang position, governor,
vice governor, board member, city . . . anong masasabi
ninyo?
MS. JAMISAL: Okay naman po.
APP DIMAANO: Meron lahat—meron doon. Balik tayo
doon sa position noong congressman at saka
representative.
APP DIMAANO: Maari bang sabihin ninyo sa amin
kung bakit ito inamin niyo at nakikita dito sa
dokumentong ito sa election return na wala ni
anong marka, ni pangalan at saka itong mga ano
‘yan . . . nararapat na markings. Mauna ka Ginang
Jamisal.
_______________
16 Rollo at pp. 28-39.
370

MS. JAMISAL: Siguro ho dahil siguro medyo ano na

kami over fatigue na—inaantok na. ‘yong nakita
ko na mga naka-tally dito ‘yon lang at saka may
mga bilang ‘yon lang ang pinirmahan ko dahil

‘yon lang . . . Hindi ko na ho na ano ‘yong sa taas
may pangalan pa lang congressman hindi naitala
ni Gina ‘yong pangalan ng kandidato sa
congressman kaya’t hindi ko na pinirmahan. So
ang pinirmihan ko lang ‘yong may mga tally.
Hindi ko na na ano ho na wala pala ‘yong
congressman. Hindi ko lang nabasa ito na
congressman. Kung siguro ho nakita ko lang na
congressman sasabihin ko ho . . . sasabihin ko kay
Gina na ilagay ang ano . . . ang kandidato sa
congressman.
APP DIMAANO: Kayo Ginang Ladub, ano ang
paliwanang niyo.
MS. LADUB: Masama ho ang pakiramdam ko.
APP DIMAANO: Ano ho ba ang isaktong papel niyo noong
election doon sa loob ng presinto. Taga ano ho kayo?
MS. LADUB: Nagta-tally ho.
APP DIMAANO: Anong ibig sabihin ng tally.
MS. LADUB: Ako pa ang humahawak nitong sa senator sa
pag tally ko po.
APP DIMAANO: Alin ang isaktong pinagtally-han niyo ho?
Anong position?
MS. LADUB: Senator.
APP DIMAANO: At saka senator lang ho ba?
MS. LADUB: Opo.
APP DIMAANO: eh ‘yong party list sinong . . .
MS. JAMISAL: ‘Yong iba ho, sir na ano naming, ‘yong
watcher kasi hindi pa naming kayang na ano . . . siguro
naman sir walang problema . . .
ATTY. FORTES: Anong presinto ‘yan?
WATCHER: 28A
ATTY. FORTES: 28A.
APP DIMAANO: Okay, dito tayo sa congressman
sinong may in-charge ditto—sino?
MS. JAMISAL: (Pointing to Ms. Labayo.)
APP DIMAANO: Gina Labayo. Kayo ho anong

masasabi niyo rito. Dapat ba ritong meron o wala.
MS. LABAYO: Meron ho.
371
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 371

APP DIMAANO: Dapat . . . meron daw. O ngayon,

bakit wala?
MS. LABAYO: Nakalimutan ko ho. Humihingi po ako
ng tawad sa inyo.
APP DIMAANO: Hindi, ipaliwanag mo lang kung
bakit kayo nakalimot. Hindi naman kami nag-ano
niyon. Nag-uusig kami kasi ‘yon din ang sasabihin
naming kung bakit.
MS. LABAYO: Sobrang pagod po, sir.
APP DIMAANO: Wala na bang ibang dahilan diyan.
Wala ka na bang ibang paliwanang maliban sa
nakalimot ka’t napapagod ka na.
MS. LABAYO:
17
(Silence.)
x x x (italics in the original; emphasis supplied)
As the above-quoted record of the proceedings before the

BOC shows, Gina Labayo, a member of the BEI, admitted
that there were supposed to be entries for the position of
congressman but she forgot to record them as she was
extremely tired. Such convenient explanation, without
more, does not, however, appear satisfactory.
Moreover, in her Answer to the original petition filed
with the COMELEC, petitioner admitted that
pollwatchers, who were not members of the BEI,
participated in the preparation of the election return. Thus
she alleged:
xxx
More importantly, the transcript of the proceedings (Annex “A-
3” page 9 and 15) will show and prove that what were prepared
and made by the pollwatchers were the entries in the TALLY
BOARD and the votes cast in the Election Return for Party List
Representative;
18
x x x (Emphasis and italics omitted: italics supplied)
As thus correctly ruled by the COMELEC Second Division:
Votes for an important position such as congressman do not

simply vanish into thin air. Those who are mandated by law to
account for such votes, if mistakenly omitted, are at least
expected to give a fairly reasonable account of why and how
they have been omitted. Absent such explanation, doubt
arises as to the authenticity of the returns and the manner
of their preparation, specially in this case
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 107-111.

18 Id., at p. 137.
372

where a party watcher was allowed to take part in the

preparation
19
of the election return.
x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied).
As to the third error raised by petitioner, she argues that

the January 10, 2003 Resolution of the COMELEC Second
Division was promulgated without giving her notice, and
that were it not for her counsel’s “accidental” visit to the
COMELEC on January 13, 2003, said counsel would not
have known that said resolution was already promulgated

and the 5-day period from the date of promulgation to file a
motion for reconsideration, as provided under the following
provision of Rule 19 of the 20 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, would have lapsed:
Section 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration.—A

motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a
Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation
thereof. Such motion, if not pro-forma, suspend the execution or
implementation of the decision, resolution, order and ruling.
And petitioner, noting that the ponente of the En Banc

Resolution was not therein indicated, raises the possibility
that the ponente for the Second Division Resolution and
that of the En Banc Resolution were the same, 21
thus
violating Section 1, Rule 4 of the COMELEC Rules which
reads:
Section 1. Disqualification or Inhibition of Members.—(a) No

Member shall sit in any case in which he or his spouse or child is
related to any party within the sixth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, or in which he has publicly expressed prejudgment as
may be shown by convincing proof, or in which the subject thereof
is a decision promulgated by him while previously serving as
presiding judge of an inferior court, without the written consent of
all the parties, signed by them and entered in the records of the
case; Provided, that no Member shall be the “ponente” of an
en banc decision/resolution on a motion to reconsider a
decision/resolution written by him in a Division.
x x x (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)
_______________
19 Id., at p. 67.
20 Id., at pp. 40-42.
21 Id., at pp. 42-43.
373
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 373

22
In Lindo v. Commission on Elections, this Court held that
the 5-day period for the filing of an appeal commences from
the date of receipt of copy of the decision. As correctly ruled
by the COMELEC:
The petitioner misinterpreted the provision of Section 2. Rule 19

of the 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure when she stated that
“Unlike other cases, the reglementary period within which a party
can have the decision or resolution reviewed on motion for
reconsideration runs from the date of promulgation.” When not
promulgated in open hearing, a simple procedural sense
would dictate that the period to file a Motion for
Reconsideration must have to be tolled from the date of
receipt of the decision/resolution involved.
Further, the doctrine laid down in the case of Lindo v. Comelec
(194 SCRA 25) would have supported the proposition that the
additional requirement imposed by the COMELEC Rules on
advance notice of promulgation does not form part of the process
of promulgation and that the failure to serve such notice in
advance did not prejudice the rights of the parties and did not
vitiate the validity of the decision nor of the promulgation, as the
period for the unsatisfied party to move for reconsideration can be
exercised—not from the date of promulgation, as misconstrued by
petitioner, but
23
from her actual receipt of a copy of the resolution
in question. (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)
As to the non-indication of the ponente of the COMELEC

En Banc Resolution, petitioner merely proffers a possibility
of violation of the COMELEC Rules. It is presumed,
however, that
24
an official duty has been regularly
performed.”
The lack of merit of petitioner’s arguments

notwithstanding, the COMELEC, in ordering the exclusion
of the questioned return, should have determined the
integrity of the ballot box, the ballot-contents of which were
tallied and reflected in the return, and if it was intact, it
should have ordered its opening for a recounting of the
ballots if their integrity was similarly intact. So instructs
Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which reads:
Section 234. Material defects in the election returns.—If it should

clearly appear that some requisites in form or data had
been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers
shall call for all
_______________
22 194 SCRA 25 (1991).

23 Rollo at p. 238.
24 Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
374

members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most

expeditious means, for the same board to effect the correction.
Provided, That in case of the omission in the election returns of
the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes, the
board of canvassers shall require the board of election inspectors
concerned to complete the necessary data in the election returns
and affix therein their initials: Provided, further, That if the votes
omitted in the returns cannot be ascertained by other means except
by recounting the ballots, the Commission, after satisfying
itself that the identity and integrity of the ballot box have
not been violated, shall order the board of election
inspectors to open the ballot box, and, also after satisfying
itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly
preserved, order the board of election inspectors to count
the votes for the candidate whose votes have been omitted with
notice thereof to all candidates for the position involved and
thereafter complete the returns. The right of a candidate to avail
of this provision shall not be lost or affected by the fact that an
election protest is subsequently filed by any of the candidates.
(Emphasis supplied)
And so does Section 235 of the same Code which provides:
Section 235. When election returns appear to be tampered with or

falsified.—If the election returns submitted to the board of
canvassers appear to be tampered with, altered or falsified
after they have left the hands of the board of election inspectors
under duress, force, intimidation, or prepared by persons other
than the members of the board of election inspectors, the
board of canvassers shall use other copies of said election returns
and if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box which upon
previous authority given by the Commission may be retrieved in
accordance with Section 220 hereof. If the other copies of the
returns are likewise tampered with, altered, falsified, not
authentic, prepared under duress, force, intimidation, or prepared
by persons other than the board of election inspectors, the board
of canvassers or any candidate affected shall bring the matter to
the attention of the Commission. The Commission shall then,
after giving notice to all candidates concerned and after
satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballot box and,
likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity of the
ballots therein has been duly preserved shall order the
board of election inspectors to recount the votes of the
candidates affected and prepare a new return which shall
then be used by the board of canvassers as basis of the
canvass. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
25
Thus, this Court in Patoray v. Commission on Elections
held:
_______________
25 274 SCRA 470 (1997).
375
VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 375

xxx
As to the election return for Precinct No. 20-A, we ruled that
the COMELEC erred in resorting to the Certificate of Votes in
excluding the return in said precinct. Since the return was
incomplete for it lacked the data as to provincial and
congressional candidates, the applicable provision would
be Section 234 of the Omnibus Election Code which deals
with material defects in election returns. Thus, we ruled
that the COMELEC should have first determined the
integrity of the ballot box, ordered the opening thereof and
recounted the ballots therein after satisfying itself that the
integrity of the ballots is intact. We then directed the
COMELEC to issue another Order in accordance with said
Decision.
x x x (Italics in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)
If the integrity of the ballot box had been violated, then

there would be no need to open it. If not, and upon opening
it there is evidence that the integrity of the ballot box had
been violated, there would be no recounting thereof, and
the COMELEC would then seal the box and order its
safekeeping. Thus Section 237 of the Omnibus Election
Code provides:
Sec. 237. When integrity of ballots is violated.—If upon the

opening of the ballot box as ordered by the Commission under
Sections 234, 235 and 236, hereof, it should appear that there are
evidence or signs of replacement, tampering or violation of the
integrity of the ballots, the Commission shall not recount the

ballots but shall forthwith seal the ballot box and order its
safekeeping.
WHEREFORE, the COMELEC is, in accordance with the

foregoing discussion, hereby DIRECTED to determine
within twenty days whether the integrity of the ballot box,
the ballot-contents of which were tallied and reflected in
the questioned return, is intact and, if in the affirmative
and the integrity of the ballots is likewise intact, to order
the Sorsogon City Board of Election Inspectors to recount
the votes cast in Precinct No. 28A2 in Barangay
Bucalbucalan, Sorsogon City and prepare a new return to
serve as basis of canvass by said board; otherwise the
ballot-box should no longer be opened or the ballots should
no longer be recounted as the case may be, in which case an
order for the safekeeping of the ballot box should be issued.
The Status Quo Ante Order issued on February 18, 2003 is
hereby DISSOLVED.
376

King Integrated Security Services, Inc. vs. Gatan
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,

Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Corona and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., On leave.
Austria-Martinez, J., On official leave.
Callejo, Sr., J., No part.
Comelec directed to order the Sorsogon City Board of

Election Inspectors to recount votes. Status quo ante
dissolved.
Note.—The cardinal objective of ballot appreciation is to

discover and give effect to, rather than frustrate the
intention of the voters, thus, every ballot shall be presumed
valid unless clear and good reasons justify its rejection.
(Torres vs. house of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 351
SCRA 312 [2001])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Lee V Comele

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee V Comele

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee V Comele

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 405

VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 363

SALLY A. LEE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

Election Law; Commission on Elections; Election Returns;

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lee vs. Commission on Elections

directed the COMELEC to issue another Order in accordance

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari with prayer for

party-list and justified by the severe lack of personnel to

1 Rollo at pp. 76-81.

VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 365

On May 18, 2001, the Board of Canvassers (BOC), finding

and accordingly excluded the questioned return from the

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.

4 Id., at pp. 130-131.

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2. Atty. Allen Francis Abaya—Vice-Chairperson

mayor of Sorsogon City excluding the election return from Precinct

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Commission En

Board is hereby authorized to use the COMELEC copy of said

10 Id., at pp. 150-195.

VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 367

Hence, the present petition, alleging that:

PUBLIC RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GO

PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED PROCEDURAL

Section 243. Issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling

On the first assigned error, petitioner argues that as the

Petitioner’s argument is bereft of merit.

evidence on record that an LDP watcher participated in the

VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 369

questioned election return. She posits that the omission of

APP DIMAANO: Ito ba ang mga papeles o election return

botohan. Punta tayo sa page one noong local

16 Rollo at pp. 28-39.

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

MS. JAMISAL: Siguro ho dahil siguro medyo ano na

mga bilang ‘yon lang ang pinirmahan ko dahil

APP DIMAANO: Gina Labayo. Kayo ho anong

VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 371

APP DIMAANO: Dapat . . . meron daw. O ngayon,

As the above-quoted record of the proceedings before the

As thus correctly ruled by the COMELEC Second Division:

Votes for an important position such as congressman do not

17 Id., at pp. 107-111.

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

where a party watcher was allowed to take part in the

As to the third error raised by petitioner, she argues that

have known that said resolution was already promulgated

Section 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration.—A

And petitioner, noting that the ponente of the En Banc

Section 1. Disqualification or Inhibition of Members.—(a) No

VOL. 405, JULY 4, 2003 373

The petitioner misinterpreted the provision of Section 2. Rule 19

As to the non-indication of the ponente of the COMELEC