EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 141952-53. April 20, 2001.]

RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR. , petitioner, vs . COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CARLES, PROVINCE OF ILOILO and FELIPE
BERNAL, JR. , respondent.

DECISION

QUISUMBING , J : p

In this special civil action, petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr., seeks to nullify the
Resolution promulgated March 2, 2000 by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en
banc, reversing that of the Second Division dated August 4, 1998, which annulled the
petitioner's proclamation as Municipal Mayor of Carles, Iloilo. TSIEAD

The antecedent facts of the case, as found by the COMELEC en banc, are as
follows:
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 precincts nos.
61A, 62A, and 63A/64A all of Barangay Pantalan were 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." Appellant Dumayas, Jr. submitted his evidence to the
Board of Canvassers on 14 May 1998 which consist of (a) the joint a davits
executed by LAMMP watchers for precinct 61A: Teresita Oblido, Reyland de la
Rosa, and Armando Flores [signed by Oblido and Flores only]; (b) a davit of
petitioner's supporter Virgilisa Capao; (c) joint a davit of precinct 63A — watcher
Nona Dichosa and precinct 62A — watcher Daniel Carmona; (d) blotter report
dated 12 May 1998 of Carles PNP, Iloilo; and (d) corroborating a davit of
LAMMP supporter Honorato Gallardo.

All the a davits submitted by petitioner contain similar attestations such

as: certain local baranggay (sic) o cials were inside the polling place during the
casting and counting of votes, or acted as watcher of respondent; SPO3 Gilbert
Sorongon who was in shorts and t-shirt armed with an armalite roamed around
and inside the polling places; a CVO in uniform was roaming precinct 63A; the
presence of the public o cials posed threat and intimidation driving most of the
watchers of other political parties away; the BEIs were so intimidated and coerced
that no election return was prepared simultaneous with the tallying; the election
returns were prepared under duress; the voters were coerced to vote for certain
favored candidates especially herein respondent; petitioner's watchers were made
to sign or a x their thumbmarks on the already prepared election returns ; in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 precinct 63A/64A, the voting ended at almost 9:00 P.M. without the BEI members
writing the names of such voters.
Petitioner also submitted a certi cation issued by PO3 Tito Billones, Desk
O cer of PNP Carles representing the blotter report (extracted from the police log
book) which states that on 12 May 1998, Virgilisa Capao reported to the Police
Station of Carles, Iloilo that PO3 Sorongon and Brgy. Capt. Mahilum entered
Precinct 63A with (sic) the company of other CVO and Brgy. Kagawad during
election. And that these people gravely intimidated the voters by telling them the
names of the candidates they should vote for. It also states that PO3 Sorongon
was not in his prescribed uniform when seen with hand grenades hanging on his
neck and carrying an armalite roaming inside and outside the polling place.
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.

xxx xxx xxx

All the supplemental a davits of the different BEIs categorically declared

that the elections in their respective precincts "starting from the start of the voting
to its closing, to the counting of votes and to the preparation and submission of
election returns" were peaceful, clean, orderly and no acts of terrorism,
intimidation, coercion and similar acts prohibited by law was (sic) exerted on
anybody including the voters and members of the BEIs. They all attested that the
incidents alleged by petitioner's watchers did not happen. The alleged terrorism,
coercion, or violation of election laws like the opening of ballots and reading the
votes allegedly done by certain public o cials like SPO3 Sorongon, Nody
Mahilum, Anonia Barrios, Telesforo Gallardo and others are not true, the truth
being that these people were only inside the polling place to exercise their right of
suffrage. They also vehemently denied that the election returns were not
simultaneously prepared with the tallying and counting of votes. They stressed
that as public school teachers, they cannot risk their future and career and will not
allow or tolerate anybody to make a mockery of the electoral process to (sic)
which they were duly sworn to uphold.

Nody Mahilum and PO3 Gilbert Sorongon also executed a joint a davit
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 re ects the will of the
electorate. LLphil

xxx xxx xxx 1

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. The results of the voting were as follows:
DUMAYAS BERNAL

CONTESTED PRECINCTS
Prec. 61A 44 117
Prec. 62A 43 114
Prec. 63A/64A (clustered) 54 159
Uncontested prec[incts] total 7,636 7,514
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ——— ———
Over all total 7,777 7,904 2
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the MBC on May 15, 1998.
The appeal was given due course by the COMELEC Second Division 3 which
rendered a resolution dated August 4, 1998, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, nding the preparation of the contested election returns to
be tainted with irregularities, this Commission (SECOND DIVISION) RESOLVED, as
it hereby RESOLVES, to EXCLUDE Election Return No. 3000976 from Precinct No.
61-A; Election Return No. 3000977 from Precinct No. 62-A; and Election return No.
3000978 from Precinct Nos. 63-A/64-A (clustered).

Respondent Mun(i)cipal Board of Canvassers is hereby directed to

RECONVENE and FINISH the canvass of the remaining or uncontested returns and
thereafter, PROCLAIM the winning mayoralty candidate of Carles, Iloilo.

SO ORDERED. 4

On August 10, 1998, private respondent Felipe Bernal, Jr., led a motion for
reconsideration of the above-cited resolution with the COMELEC en banc.
On August 12, 1998, an order certifying that the motion for reconsideration and
records of the case were elevated to the COMELEC en banc was signed by
Commissioner Julio F. Desamito and issued by the Clerk of the Commission.
Pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and pursuant to the
resolution of the COMELEC Second Division, Election O cer 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. The MBC then reset the date for reconvening of the board on August 17,
1998, after con rming by phone with COMELEC-Manila that a motion for
reconsideration was indeed led by private respondent. Thereafter, the MBC ruled that
proclamation of the winning candidate for Mayor would proceed on August 17, 1998
unless private respondent could present a certi cation from the COMELEC that the
motion for reconsideration was elevated to the COMELEC en banc.
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. The MBC, with its Vice-Chairman dissenting, justi ed its act
by reasoning that it did not receive an o cial copy of the order directing the elevation
of the case to the banc.
The following day, private respondent immediately led an urgent motion to
declare void ab initio the proclamation of petitioner on the ground that the resolution of
the COMELEC Second Division was not yet nal and executory. For his part, petitioner
opposed both the motion for reconsideration and motion to declare void ab initio his
proclamation as Mayor of Carles, asserting that private respondent failed to show
palpable errors to warrant reconsideration of said resolution and maintaining, at the
same time, that his proclamation was legal since respondent failed to produce the
certification required by the MBC. TDAHCS

Meanwhile, on August 25, 1998, the duly-proclaimed Vice-Mayor Arnold Betita

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 led an action for quo warranto 5 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.
On September 18, 1998, petitioner led 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 ling 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, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution of the Second Division
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the proclamation of Rodolfo Dumayas,
Jr. is hereby ANNULLED. A new Municipal Board of Canvassers of Carles, Iloilo is
hereby constituted with the following members: Atty. Nelia Aureus, Chairman;
Atty. Rosel Abad, Vice-Chairman; and Atty. Manuel Lucero, Third Member — all of
Election Contests and Adjudication Department of the Commission. They are
directed to convene at Session Hall of the COMELEC — Main O ce, Manila on the
tenth (10th) day from the date of promulgation of this Resolution with notice to
the parties. The new board of canvassers shall complete the canvassing of all the
returns and proceed with the proclamation of the true winner for the position of
mayor of Carles, Iloilo. Petitioner Rodolfo Dumayas, Jr. is hereby directed to cease
and desist from performing the functions of the o ce of mayor of Carles, Iloilo.
Election O cer Rolando Dalen is hereby directed to bring to the Commission's
Main O ce the election returns of Carles, Iloilo which need to be canvassed and
the other election documents necessary for the canvassing and proclamation and
turn them over to the new board of canvassers.

The Law Department is directed to investigate the election offense

allegedly committed by PO3 Gilbert Sorongon on election day.

Let the Deputy Executive Director for Operations of the Commission

implement this Resolution with dispatch giving a copy thereof to the Secretary of
the Department of the Interior and Local Government.
SO ORDERED. 6

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 where he alleges that:
A. RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT, PRIVATE
RESPONDENT FELIPE BERNAL JR. IS DEEMED TO HAVE ABANDONED HIS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS EN BANC CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT,
TOGETHER WITH ARNOLD BETITA FILED AN ELECTION CASE THRU A
QUO WARRANTO, BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO
BRANCH 66, DOCKETED AS CASE NO. 98-141.
B. RESPONDENT COMMISSION ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE INCLUSION FOR
CANVASS THE THREE ELECTION RETURNS FOR PRECINCT NOS. 61-A, 62-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A, and 63-A/64-A (CLUSTERED) BY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF CARLES, ILOILO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
THERE IS CLEAR AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE
ELECTION RETURNS FOR THESE THREE PRECINCT(S) WERE PREPARED
UNDER DURESS AND NOT PREPARED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
COUNTING OF VOTES.
C. 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 FOUR COMMISSIONERS VOTED TO REVERSE
THE RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 4, 1998 OF THE SECOND DIVISION
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THAT, TWO COMMISSIONER(S) HAVE
ALREADY RETIRED, AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION. 7

The following are the issues to be resolved: (1) Should respondent Bernal, who
was named as petitioner in the quo warranto proceedings commenced before the
regular court, be deemed to have abandoned the motions he had led with respondent
Commission? (2) Did the COMELEC err in ordering the inclusion of the contested
election returns in the canvassing of ballots? (3) In view of the retirement of
Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani before the date of the promulgation of the
assailed resolution on March 2, 2000, should said resolution be deemed null and void
for being violative of Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution? ATcEDS

We shall rst discuss the third issue. Petitioner claims that March 2, 2000
Resolution of the COMELEC is void because Commissioners Manolo Gorospe and
Japal Guiani have already retired on the date of its promulgation, even if they had
participated earlier in the deliberations of the case and signed the resolution dated
August 24, 1999. Petitioner submits that this defect invalidated the entire decision of
the Commission and that accordingly, a new vote should be taken to settle the matter.
In Jamil vs. Commission on Elections, 8 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 o ce, 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 nd 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. The nulli cation of
the challenged resolution, in our view, would merely prolong the proceedings
unnecessarily.
Now, regarding the rst issue raised by petitioner. Did respondent Bernal
effectively abandon his pending motions before the COMELEC en banc by the ling of
Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141? Petitioner's contention that Bernal did appears to us
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 untenable.
As a general rule, the ling of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto
precludes the subsequent ling of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the
abandonment of one earlier led, 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 reason for this rule is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of
an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have
to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding, so as to prevent
confusion and conflict of authority. 9
Nevertheless, 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 led was not really a petition for quo warranto or
an election protest but a petition to annul a proclamation; (d) the ling 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. 1 0
An examination of the petition led primarily by Vice-Mayor Betita with the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City reveals that it is neither a quo warranto petition under
the Omnibus Election Code nor an election protest. In Samad vs. COMELEC 1 1 , we
explained that a petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code raises in
issue the disloyalty or ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat
the respondent from o ce but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place. An
election protest is a contest between the defeated and winning candidates on the
ground of frauds or irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or in the
preparation of the returns. It raises the question of who actually obtained the plurality
of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the office.
The allegations contained in Betita's petition before the regular court do not
present any proper issue for either an election protest or a quo warranto case under the
Omnibus Election Code. Spl. Civil Action No. 98-141 appears to be in the nature of an
action for usurpation of public o ce brought by Betita to assert his right to the
position of Mayor pursuant to the rules on succession of local government o cials
contained in the Local Government Code. 1 2 Although said petition is also denominated
as a quo warranto petition under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, it is different in nature
from the quo warranto provided for in the Omnibus Election Code where the only issue
proper for determination is either disloyalty or ineligibility of respondent therein.
Neither can it be considered as an election protest since what was put forth as an issue
in said petition was petitioner's alleged unlawful assumption of the o ce of Mayor by
virtue of his alleged illegal proclamation as the winning candidate in the election. aHDTAI

A closer look at the speci c allegations in the petition disclose that Spl. Civil
Action No. 98-141 is actually an action for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation
on the ground of illegality and prematurity. This conclusion is consistent with the rule
that the nature of the action is determined by the averments in the complaint or petition
1 3 and not the title or caption thereof. The material stipulations of the petition
substantially state:
13. That when the Board of Canvassers convened in the afternoon and
despite the submission of the copy of the order certifying the Motion for
Reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc and in violation of the Comelec
Rules and Procedure and due to the threat received by the Board, Mr. Dalen,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the Chairman of the Board and Mr. Sera n Provido, Jr. signed the
Certi cate of Proclamation proclaiming respondent as winner of the
elections for Mayor. Mr. Deony Cabaobao did not signed (sic) the said
Certi cate of Proclamation as he dissented to (sic) the decision to
proclaim respondent;
14. The proclamation, therefore, of respondent is illegal and null and void
from the very beginning for it was done in violation of law and under
duress. The a davit of Mr. Sera n Provido, Jr. a member of the Board of
Canvassers showing duress is hereto attached as Annex "C";
15. On account of the illegal proclamation of the respondent said
proclamation does not vest any right or authority for him to sit as Mayor of
the town of Carles thus when he sits as such Mayor he usurps, intrudes
into, and unlawfully holds and exercise(s) a public office without authority;
16. The authority to act as mayor for and in the absence of the duly
proclaimed mayor is vested on petitioner Betita pursuant to law;
17. That the continued unlawful exercise by the respondent of the position of
mayor of the town of Carles will cause great and irreparable damage to the
petitioners, particularly petitioner Betita, who pursuant to law is entitled to
act as Mayor of the town of Carles and the people of Carles who pays his
salaries unless he be restrained or enjoined from sitiing (sic) as such
Mayor;
xxx xxx xxx 1 4
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 rst 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.
We now consider whether the MBC's proclamation of petitioner Dumayas as the
winning candidate in the 1998 mayoralty election is null and void. For where a
proclamation is null and void, it is no proclamation at all such that the proclaimed
candidate's assumption of o ce cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare
such nullity and annul the proclamation. 1 5
Although petitioner's proclamation was undertaken pursuant to the resolution of
the COMELEC's Second Division, it appears plain to us that the latter grievously erred in
ordering the exclusion of the contested returns from Precincts 61A, 62A and 63A/64A
(clustered). On this score, the Comelec en banc correctly reversed the Second Division
by holding that petitioner Dumayas failed to justify the exclusion of said returns on the
ground of duress, intimidation, threat or coercion. We note that the only evidence
submitted by petitioner to prove said irregularities were self-serving affidavits executed
by his watchers and supporters. Aside from the fact that these allegations were
countered by opposing a davits made by the members of the Boards of Election
Inspectors who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties 1 6 and who
categorically denied the allegations, the election returns were also observed to be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 genuine, clean, signed and/or thumbmarked by the proper officials and watchers. 1 7
Well-entrenched is the rule that ndings of fact by the COMELEC, or any other
administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its eld of endeavor, are binding
on this Court. 1 8 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. 1 9
In the present case, petitioner barely alleged that the preparation of said returns
was attended by threats, duress, intimidation or coercion without offering any proof,
other than the a davits 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 can not be excluded on mere allegation that the returns are
manufactured or ctitious 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 falsi cation of
the election returns, such grounds are properly cognizable in an election protest and
not in a pre-proclamation controversy. 2 0
In sum, we hold that the COMELEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in reversing the ruling of its Second Division. The appeal brought by
petitioner from the order of inclusion issued by the MBC should have been dismissed
by that Division right away, since the grounds for exclusion relied upon by petitioner are
not proper in a pre-proclamation case, which is summary in nature. ITScHa

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, public

respondent having committed no grave abuse of discretion. Its challenged resolution
dated August 24, 1999 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 83-87.

2. Id. at 127.
3. Composed of Commissioners Japal Guiani (Ponente), Julio Desamito (Dissenting) and
then COMELEC Chairman (now SC Associate Justice) Bernardo Pardo (Concurring and
Sitting with the Division under Rule 3, Sec. 2 [2nd par.] Comelec Rules of Procedure.
4. Supra, note 1 at 56.
5. Id. at 67-72.
6. Id. at 91.
7. Id. at 17.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8. 283 SCRA 349, 371 (1997).
9. Samad vs. COMELEC, 224 SCRA 631, 638 (1993) citing: Sevilleja vs. COMELEC, 107
SCRA 141 (1981); Mogueis, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 576 (1981); Filart vs. COMELEC,
53 SCRA 457 (1973); Reyes vs. Reyes, 22 SCRA 485 (1968); Agpalo, Comments on the
Omnibus Election Code, 1992 Ed, p. 337; Acain & Malimit vs. Board of Canvassers of
Carmen, Agusan, et. al., 108 Phil. 165 (1960); Salvacion vs. COMELEC, 170 SCRA 513
(1989); and Padilla vs. COMELEC, 137 SCRA 424 (1985).
10. Laodenio vs. COMELEC, 276 SCRA 705, 713-714 (1997).
11. Supra, note 9 citing: Sec. 253, Omnibus Election Code and Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil.
238 (1912).
12. Supra, note 1 at 90.
13. Remedial Law Compendium, 1997 Ed., Justice F. D. Regalado, pp. 126 & 139-140.

14. Supra, note 1 at 69-70.

15. Torres vs . COMELEC, 270 SCRA 583, 588-589 (1997) citing: Aguam vs. COMELEC, 23
SCRA 883 (1968).
16. Matalam vs. COMELEC, 271 SCRA 733, 756 (1997).
17. Supra, note 12.
18. Cordero vs. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 118, 126 (1999) citing: Grego vs. COMELEC, 274
SCRA 481 (1997); Phil. Savings Bank vs. NLRC, 261 SCRA 409 (1996) and Navarro vs.
COMELEC, 228 SCRA 596 (1993).
19. Chu vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 482, 492 (1999) citing: Matalam vs. COMELEC, supra.;
Loong vs. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 1 (1996); Dimaporo vs. COMELEC, 186 SCRA 769
(1990); Dipatuan vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 86 (1990).
20. Salih vs. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 19, 32 (1997).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com