Chu Vs Comelec

2/25/2020 G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1999 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.
, ET AL. : November 1999 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
Replay
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
November 1999 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search
Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 >

November 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 135423 November
ChanRobles On-Line 29, 1999 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.:
Bar Review
EN BANC
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999novemberdecisions.php?id=1042 1/22
2/25/2020 G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1999 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL. : November 1999 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
[G.R. No. 135423. November 29, 1999.]
JESUS L. CHU, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF USON, MASBATE and SALVADORA
O. SANCHEZ, Respondents.
DECISION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the

September 1, 1998 resolution of the Commission on
Elections (Comelec) en banc in SPC No. 98-109, denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and affirming the
June 8, 1998 order of its Second Division. 1 The
aforesaid order upheld the ruling of the Municipal Board
of Canvassers of Uson, Masbate to include in its
canvassing the 37 election returns objected to by
petitioner. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Petitioner Jesus L. Chu and private respondent Salvadora

O. Sanchez (Sanchez) were candidates for municipal
mayor of Uson, Masbate in the May 11, 1998 elections.
While the election returns were being canvassed by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Uson, Masbate (MBC),
petitioner objected to the inclusion in the canvass of
some of the election returns. 2 Petitioner alleged that
Sanchez, with the aid of armed men, entered into the
polling places where the centralized counting was being
conducted, and exerted undue influence and intimidation
upon the board of election inspectors (BEI) who were
then counting the votes and preparing the election
returns. 3 Thus, according to petitioner, the votes
reflected in these returns are no longer reflective of the
will of the electorate and should not be included in the
canvass. 4
Petitioner claims that he orally objected to the inclusion

of seventy-four (74) election returns. Yet, he was only
able to file written objections within 24 hours from the
time the oral objections were made as required under
section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code (the "Code") 5
for thirty-seven (37) 6 election returns. Petitioner
attributed this shortcoming to the MBC’s refusal to give
him the prescribed form when it convened on the
evening of May 11, 1998. It was only on May 12, 1998,
at 5 p.m., after the MBC had already finished canvassing
forty (40) election returns, that the MBC furnished
petitioner with a single copy of the required forms, which
petitioner had to photocopy in another municipality. 7
On May 15, 1998, the MBC rejected petitioner’s

objections, finding that the affidavits submitted by
petitioner were not sufficient to support his allegations
that they were prepared under duress and giving more
weight to the affidavits executed by the BEI. 8 Petitioner
appealed to the Comelec and on June 8, 1998, public
respondent’s Second Division denied petitioner’s appeal
and directed the MBC to reconvene and include in the
canvass the 37 election returns and, thereafter, proclaim
the winning candidate. Its disposition was as follows —
While the appeal interposed by the appellant show [sic]

that the ground adduced fall [sic] under paragraph (c) of
Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, there is,
however nothing in the statements of the witnesses that
would remotely evinced [sic] the alleged intimidation,
duress, coercion or undue influence supposedly exerted
by the private respondent and the armed men during the
counting of votes and the preparation of the election
returns. . .
The question to be resolved is whether or not the

objections are valid and sufficient to cause the exclusion
of these 37 election returns of the enumerated precincts

from the canvass. The evidence presented by the
petitioner are insubstantial and lacks the specifics
required to prove that respondent indeed committed the
acts imputed to her which, as a consequence, would
suffice to render the subject election returns defective or
invalid. Unless palpable errors and/or material defects
are clearly discernible on the faces of these returns, the
Board of Canvassers is duty bound to canvass the same.
The Board cannot look beyond or behind these election
returns because its function is purely ministerial.
Apropos thereto, the Supreme Court in Casimiro v.

Commission on Elections, March 29, 1989, 171 SCRA
468, said: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Obviously the evidence relied upon by petitioner to

support their charges of fraud and irregularities in the
election returns and in the canvassing consisted of
Affidavits prepared by their own representatives. The
self-serving nature of said Affidavits cannot be
discounted. As this Court has pronounced, reliance
should not be placed on mere affidavits.
Aside from said sworn statements, the records do not

indicate any other substantial evidence that would justify
the exclusion of election returns in the canvassing for
being fraudulent in character or a declaration that the
proceedings wherein the returns were canvassed were
null and void. The evidence presented by petitioners is
not enough to overturn the presumption that official duty
had been regularly performed (Section 5[m], Rule 131).
In the absence of clearly convincing evidence, the
election returns and the canvassing proceedings must be
upheld. A conclusion that an election return is obviously
manufactured or false and consequently should be
disregarded in the canvass must be approached with
extreme caution, and only upon the most convincing
proof." cralaw virtua1aw library
Perforce, for insufficiency of evidence, the ruling of the

Municipal Board of Canvassers of Uson, Masbate, dated
May 15, 1998, to include in the canvass these 37
election returns is AFFIRMED. 9
Petitioner received the Comelec’s order on June 17,

1998. The following day, on June 18, 1998, upon the
November-1999 receipt of a telegram sent by the Comelec, the MBC
Jurisprudence proclaimed Sanchez as the winning candidate. On June
22, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Second Division’s order, with an additional prayer for
A.M. No. P-99- the annulment of the proclamation of Sanchez. However,
1315 November 3, on September 1, 1998 the Comelec en banc denied
1999 - JESUSA petitioner’s motion. Hence, this special civil action,
MANINGAS, ET AL. v. wherein petitioner raises the following issues —
CARLITO C.
BARCENAS 1. Whether or not the proclamation of Salvadora
Sanchez as the winning mayoralty candidate of Uson,
G.R. No. 136448 Masbate before the lapse of the five-day reglementary
November 3, 1999 - period within which the losing party [herein petitioner]
LIM TONG LIM v. may file his motion for reconsideration is valid?
PHIL. FISHING GEAR
INDUSTRIES 2. Whether or not the September 1, 1998 resolution of
the Comelec en banc affirming the June 8, 1998 order of
G.R. No. 137136 its second division is valid albeit the fact that it failed to
November 3, 1999 - rule on the remaining 37 election returns which were
NORTHWEST likewise objected to by petitioner and the results thereof
AIRLINES v. CAMILLE will materially affect the outcome of the election?
T. CRUZ, ET AL.
3. Whether or not public respondent Comelec gravely
G.R. No. 135913 abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
November 4, 1999 - jurisdiction when it rendered the September 1, 1998
VICTORIANO B. TIROL resolution in SPC Case No. 98-109? 10
v. CIPRIANO A. DEL
ROSARIO, ET AL. The petition is without merit.
The Code provides that a pre-proclamation controversy

A.M. No. RTJ-98- refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the

1425 November 16, proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be
1999 - DOMINGO G. raised by any candidate or by any registered political
PANGANIBAN v. party or coalition of political parties before the board or
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under
ET AL. Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the
preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and
A.M. No. RTJ-99- appreciation of the election returns. 11
1504 November 16,
1999 - ANG KEK CHEN Section 243 of the Code enumerates the specific issues
v. AMALIA R. that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy as
ANDRADE follows: cralawnad
G.R. No. 106593 (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of

November 16, 1999 - canvassers;
NAT’L HOUSING
AUTHORITY v. MAURO (b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete,
T. ALLARDE, ET AL. contain material defects, appear to be tampered with or
falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns or
G.R. No. 106795 in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in
November 16, 1999 - Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Code;
STATE INVESTMENT
HOUSE v. COURT OF (c) The election returns were prepared under duress,
APPEALS, ET AL. threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously
manufactured or not authentic; and
G.R. No. 113638
November 16, 1999 - (d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in
A. D. GOTHONG controverted polling places were canvassed, the results
MANUFACTURING of which materially affected the standing of the
CORP. EMPLOYEES aggrieved candidate or candidates.
UNION-ALU v. NIEVES
CONFESOR, ET AL. In addition to the restrictive and exclusive scope of its
subject matter, all pre-proclamation controversies on
G.R. No. 115180 election returns or certificates of canvass shall be
November 16, 1999 - disposed of summarily — first, by the board of
FILIPINO PIPE AND canvassers, and then, by the Comelec. 12 It is a well-
FOUNDRY CORP. v. entrenched rule in jurisprudence that, in a pre-
NLRC, ET AL. proclamation controversy, the board of canvassers and
the Comelec are not to look beyond or behind election
G.R. No. 123045 returns which are on their face regular and authentic
November 16, 1999 - returns. In such summary proceedings, there is no room
DEMETRIO R. TECSON for the presentation of evidence aliunde, the inspection
v. SANDIGANBAYAN, of voluminous documents, and for meticulous technical
ET AL. examinations which take up considerable time. A party
seeking to raise issues the resolution of which would
All-In 35K DP for
compel or necessitate the Comelec to pierce the veil of
Honda CR-V
election returns which are prima facie regular on their
Ad Honda Cars Philippines
face, has his proper remedy in a regular election protest.
13 Open
The legislative intent behind the summary disposition of

G.R. No. 123686
pre-proclamation controversies is to give life to the
November 16, 1999 -
policy that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as
APOLINARIO MELO,
little as possible for it is in the public interest that the
ET AL. v. COURT OF
position for which the election was held should be filled
APPEALS, ET AL.
promptly, even though the proclamation of the winning
candidates be provisional in nature, in that the same
G.R. No. 124166
may still be subject to the results of the election protests
November 16, 1999 -
that may be subsequently filed. 14 Also, the boards of
BENGUET CORP. v.
canvassers, particularly municipal, city and provincial,
NLRC, ET AL.
before whom such pre-proclamation controversies are
initiated, are merely ad hoc bodies, existing only for the
G.R. Nos. 125814-
interim task of canvassing election returns and thus, do
15 November 16,
not have the facilities, the time, nor the competence to
1999 - PEOPLE OF
hear, examine and decide on alleged election
THE PHIL. v. SAMSON
irregularities, unlike regular courts, the Comelec or the
PATALINGHUG
electoral tribunals (Presidential, Senate, and House)
which are regular agencies of the government tasked
G.R. No. 126332
and equipped for the purpose. 15
November 16, 1999 -
LAND BANK OF THE
In order to justify his objection to the inclusion of the 74
PHIL. v. COURT OF
election returns in the canvassing, petitioner alleged the
APPEALS, ET AL
following election irregularities — (1) Sanchez replaced
some members of the BEI with her relatives and
G.R. No. 128361
sympathizers; (2) the respective assignments of the
November 16, 1999 -
other BEI members were changed without prior approval
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
by the Comelec; (3) after the voting, the members of
the BEI were instructed to bring to Uson Central School
v. MOROY "SONNY" the ballot boxes for a centralized counting despite the
GALLO fact that the elections were peaceful and orderly and
hence, there was no need to transfer the venue of the
G.R. No. 128452 counting of the ballots; (4) that, considering the distance
November 16, 1999 - of some barangays from Uson, it took several hours for
COMPANIA MARITIMA the ballot boxes to reach the school, during which time
v. COURT OF many irregularities could have transpired, destroying the
APPEALS, ET AL. sanctity of the ballot boxes; (5) during the counting of
the ballots and the preparation of the returns, Sanchez
G.R. No. 128957 and her fully armed bodyguards entered the polling
November 16, 1999 - places and spoke with the members of the BEI who, due
ANTONIO PARE v. to very strong fear for their lives, were forced to
NLRC, ET AL. disregard the ballots and instead to favor Sanchez,
giving her a wide margin over petitioner; (6) Sanchez,
G.R. No. 131235 together with her relatives and supporters, observed the
November 16, 1999 - proceedings before the BEI, resulting in the intimidation
UST FACULTY UNION of the members thereof; (7) Sanchez’ bodyguards
(USTFU) v. threatened petitioner’s watchers in order to prevent
BENEDICTO ERNESTO them from performing their functions; and (8) some
R. BITONIO JR. members of the MBC were forced by Sanchez’
bodyguards to immediately proclaim Sanchez. In support
G.R. No. 131777 of his allegations, petitioner submitted the affidavits of
November 16, 1999 - members of the BEI and of his own supporters 16 and a
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. certified true copy of an excerpt from the blotter of the
v. ROSALINDA Uson Police Department. 17
ARIOLA
The only issue raised by petitioner which may possibly
G.R. No. 132497 be the subject of a pre-proclamation controversy is the
November 16, 1999 - entry of Sanchez and her armed bodyguards in the
LUIS MIGUEL YSMAEL, polling places during the counting of ballots and the
ET AL. v. COURT OF preparation of the election returns, which allegedly
APPEALS, ET AL. caused the intimidation and undue influence of the
members of the BEI, resulting in the "sudden and radical
A.C. No. 5170 change" in the election returns. 18 This would appear to
November 17, 1999 - fall under section 243 (c) of the Code, which provides
LILIA FERRER TUCAY that one of the issues properly pertaining to a pre-
v. MANUEL R. TUCAY proclamation controversy is that —
[t]he election returns were prepared under duress,

ADM. MATTER No. threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously

RTJ-95-1324 manufactured or not authentic.
November 17, 1999 -
EVARISTO MANAHON However, petitioner does not claim that there are any
v. ALVIN I. TAN defects or irregularities apparent from a physical
inspection of the election returns. Neither did the MBC
G.R. No. 123152 nor the Comelec make any finding that the returns
November 17, 1999 - contained any palpable errors or material defects. To
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. prove the intimidation which petitioner asserts was
v. RODRIGO LASOLA exerted upon the members of the BEI by Sanchez and
her supporters would require the reception of evidence
G.R. No. 129169 aliunde in a full-blown proceeding, wherein the parties
November 17, 1999 - are permitted to file pleadings and to introduce the
NIA v. COURT OF testimonies of their witnesses and other documentary
APPEALS, ET AL. evidence to substantiate their allegations before the
proper tribunal. Such election irregularities cannot be
G.R. No. 129256 proven in a summary proceeding like a pre-proclamation
November 17, 1999 - controversy, but rather should be properly raised in an
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. election protest. cralawnad
v. JOEL PINCA
In the recent case Salih v. Comelec, 19 we held that

G.R. No. 130591 returns will not be excluded on the mere allegations that
November 17, 1999 - the returns are manufactured or fictitious when the
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. returns, on their face, appear regular and wanting of any
v. CARMELO LACABA physical signs of tampering, alteration, or other similar
vice. Thus, if there had been sham voting or minimal
G.R. No. 130607 voting which was made to appear as normal through the
November 17, 1999 - falsification of the election returns, such grounds are
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. properly cognizable in an election protest and not in a
v. RUSTICO RIVERA pre-proclamation controversy.
G.R. No. 131499 And in Matalam v. Comelec, 20 the Court, in rejecting

November 17, 1999 - petitioner’s claims that the election returns were
HERMIE M. HERRERA, spurious, obviously manufactured and prepared under
ET AL. v. COMELEC irregular circumstances, explained that
G.R. Nos. 132216 [the] petition must fail because it effectively implores
& 133479 November the Court to disregard the statutory norm that pre-
17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF proclamation controversies are to be resolved in a
THE PHIL. v. summary proceeding. He [petitioner] asks the Court to

SALVADOR TORIO ignore the fact that the election returns appear regular
on their face, and instead to determine whether fraud or
G.R. No. 132238 irregularities attended the election process. Because
November 17, 1999 - what he is asking for necessarily postulates a full
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. reception of evidence aliunde and the meticulous
v. LITO BAYGAR examination of voluminous election documents, it is
clearly anathema to a pre-proclamation controversy
G.R. No. 133148 which, by its very nature, is to be heard summarily and
November 17, 1999 - decided as promptly as possible.
J.R. BLANCO v.
WILLIAM H. QUASHA, Petitioner claims that the proclamation of Sanchez was
ET AL. premature since, at the time of such proclamation, the
Comelec’s June 8, 1998 order was not yet final and
G.R. No. 134467 executory pursuant to paragraphs (h) and (i) of section
November 17, 1999 - 20 of RA 7166 which provides —
ATLAS
CONSOLIDATED SECTION 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested
MINING & DEV’T. Election Returns. —
CORP. v.
COMMISSIONER OF x x x
INTERNAL REVENUE
A.M. No. P-99- (h) On the basis of the records and evidence elevated to
1326 November 18, it by the board, the Commission shall decide summarily
1999 - MARIVIC T. the appeal within seven (7) days from receipt of said
BALISI-UMALI v. records and evidence. Any appeal brought before the
SIXTO A. PEÑALOSA Commission on the ruling of the board, without the
accomplished forms and the evidence appended thereto,
A.M. No. P-99- shall be summarily dismissed.
1338 November 18,
1999 - ESTELA P. The decision of the Commission shall be executory after
VALLES v. NILA the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt thereof by the
ARZAGA-QUIJANO losing party.
G.R. No. 103476 (i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any
November 18, 1999 - candidate as winner unless authorized by the
CODIDI MATA, ET AL. Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections
v. COURT OF APPEALS brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any
proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab

G.R. No. 106531 initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely
November 18, 1999 - affect the results of the election.
FERNANDO GARCIA,
ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF Petitioner also cites sections 13, Rule 18 and section 2,
THE PHIL., ET AL. Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which states
as follows —
G.R. No. 109371
November 18, 1999 - Rule 18 - Decisions
JOSE GAUDIA v.
NLRC, ET AL. SECTION 13. Finality of Decisions or Resolutions. —
G.R. No. 122240 x x x

November 18, 1999 -
CRISTONICO B.
LEGAHI v. NLRC, ET (b) In Special Actions and Special Cases a decision or
AL. resolutions of the Commission en banc shall become final
and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation
G.R. No. 127167 unless restrained by the Supreme Court.
November 18, 1999 -
REPUBLIC OF THE x x x
PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL
A.M. No. P-94- Rule 19 - Motions for Reconsideration

1080, P-95-1128 & P-
95-1144 November SECTION 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration.
19, 1999 - DINAH — A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order,
CHRISTINA A. AMANE, or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5) days
ET AL. v. SUSAN from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if not pro
MENDOZA-ARCE, ET forma, suspends the execution or implementation of the
AL. decision, resolution, order or ruling.
G.R. No. 110048 According to petitioner, since he received the Comelec’s

November 19, 1999 - June 8, 1998 order only on June 17, 1998, the same
SERVICEWIDE attained finality and may be fully executed only on June
SPECIALISTS v. 24, 1998; that he had five days from receipt of the
COURT OF APPEALS, assailed order to file a motion for reconsideration or until
ET AL. June 22, 1998; and that the proclamation of Sanchez as
the winning candidate by the MBC on June 18, 1998 is
G.R. No. 114198 void ab initio for at the time there was no final judgment
November 19, 1999 - which the board could lawfully implement. 21
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MATEO BALUDDA Petitioner also asks this Court to declare that the
Comelec committed a reversible error in failing to pass
G.R. No. 114508 upon his objections to the inclusion of the thirty-seven
November 19, 1999 - (37) election returns which he was unable to embody in
PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI the prescribed form, as required by section 20 (c) of RA
v. COURT OF 7166, reasoning that such failure was attributable to the
APPEALS, ET AL. MBC. 22
G.R. No. 115412 In light of our ruling that the electoral irregularities
November 19, 1999 - enumerated by petitioner are not proper to a pre-
HOME BANKERS proclamation controversy for so long as the election
SAVINGS AND TRUST returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on
COMPANY v. COURT their face, the other issues raised by petitioner have
OF APPEALS, ET AL. necessarily become moot and academic. 23 The MBC, in
rejecting petitioner’s objections and proclaiming
G.R. No. 126932 Sanchez, and the Comelec, in upholding the MBC, are
November 19, 1999 - entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. performance of their official functions, 24 which
v. PASCUA GALLADAN petitioner has failed to rebut.
G.R. No. 127768 Even assuming that petitioner had availed of the proper
November 19, 1999 - remedy, still the proclamation of Sanchez by the MBC did
UNITED AIRLINES v. not have to await the resolution of his motion for
WILLIE J. UY reconsideration by the Comelec en banc since it was
validly made upon the authority of the order issued by
G.R. No. 128797 the Comelec’s Second Division, ordering the MBC to
November 19, 1999 - reconvene and include the 37 election returns in the
FIRST NATIONWIDE canvass and thereafter, proclaim the winning candidate.
ASSURANCE In this respect, our ruling in Casimiro v. Comelec 25 is
CORPORATION v. squarely in point. We held in this case that the
COURT OF APPEALS, proclamation of the winning candidate by the board of
ET AL. canvassers was authorized by the ruling of the Comelec’s
Second Division ordering the board to "reconvene,
G.R. No. 129096 complete the canvass if not yet completed, and proclaim
November 19, 1999 - the winning candidates. . ." even though such
proclamation was made before the filing of the motion
MARIVIC ZARATE v. for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
COMELEC, ET AL.
We wish to stress that our ruling in this case merely

G.R. No. 129732 sustains the Comelec’s position that, in the absence of
November 19, 1999 - "palpable errors and/or material defects [which] are
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. clearly discernible on the faces of these returns," the
v. MARIO BASCO board of canvassers should include in the canvass the 37
election returns 26 and that, by ruling thus, we have no
G.R. No. 130772 intention of passing upon the verity of petitioner’s
November 19, 1999 - imputations of electoral irregularities and acts of
WALLEM MARITIME terrorism, which we reiterate is not in issue in a pre-
SERVICES v. NLRC, proclamation controversy, but should be resolved in a
Et. Al. proper electoral protest. 27
G.R. No. 130922 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for

November 19, 1999 - petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that public respondent
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amount to
v. ALFREDO REQUIZ lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its resolution
dated September 1, 1998.
G.R. No. 131479
November 19, 1999 - SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. ROLANDO GASPAR
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena and
G.R. No. 131732
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
November 19, 1999 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
Pardo, J., took no part; was Comelec chair.
v. WILSON
CATAMPONGAN, ET
AL. Endnotes:
G.R. No. 132474

November 19, 1999 - 1. Composed of Julio F. Desamito (Presiding
RENATO CENIDO v. Commissioner) and Japal M. Guiani.
AMADEO
APACIONADO, ET AL. 2. Rollo, 40, 326.
G.R. No. 132644 3. Ibid., 184.
November 19, 1999 -

ERNESTO DAVID, ET 4. Ibid., 5.

AL. v. CRISTITO
MALAY, ET AL. 5. Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
G.R. No. 134685 6. It is noted that in his petition filed with this
November 19, 1999 - Court, petitioner alleges that he was only
MARIA ANTONIA able to file proper and timely objections to
SIGUAN v. ROSA LIM thirty-four (34) election returns. However, his
appeal with the Comelec and the June 8,
A.M. No. P-94- 1998 order of the Comelec’s Second Division
1076 November 22, both state that petitioner filed written
1999 - ENRIQUE M. objections to thirty-seven (37) election
ALMARIO v. returns. Rollo, 9, 40, 184.
JAMESWELL M.
RESUS, ET AL. 7. Ibid., 8-9.
A.M. No. P-99- 8. Ibid,. 187.

1341 November 22,
1999 - JULITO BIAG v. 9. Ibid., 41-42.
LUALHATI
GUBATANGA 10. Petitioner’s Memorandum, 14.
G.R. No. 97914 11. Code, sec. 241.

November 22, 1999 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 12. Republic Act No. 7166 —
v. JOEL BROMO
SEC. 18. Summary Disposition of Pre-
G.R. No. 122279 proclamation Controversies. — All pre-
November 22, 1999 - proclamation controversies on election
C & A CONSTRUCTION returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the
CO. v. NLRC, ET AL. basis of the records and evidence elevated to
it by the board of canvassers, be disposed of
G.R. No. 127566 summarily by the Commission within seven
November 22, 1999 - (7) days from receipt thereof. Its decisions
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. shall be executory after the lapse of seven
v. EULALIO PADIL (7) days from receipt by the losing party of
the decision of the Commission.
G.R. No. 135562
November 22, 1999 - SEC. 20. Procedure in Disposition of
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Contested Election Returns. —

v. BENITO BRAVO
(a) Any candidate, political party or coalition
Administrative of political parties contesting the inclusion or
Case No. 5169 exclusion in the canvass of any election
November 24, 1999 - returns on any of the grounds authorized
ELMO S. MOTON v. under Article XX or Sections 324,235 and 236
RAYMUNDO D. of Article XIX of the Omnibus Election Code
CADIAO shall submit their oral objection to the
chairman of the board of canvassers at the
A.M. No. P-99- time the questioned return is presented for
1351 November 24, inclusion in the canvass. Such objection shall
1999 - RENATO G. be recorded in the minutes of the canvass.
CUNANAN v. ARTURO
C. FLORES (b) Upon receipt of any such objection, the
board of canvassers shall automatically defer
G.R. No. 66508 the canvass of the contested returns and
November 24, 1999 - shall proceed to canvass the returns which
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. are not contested by any party.
v. FORTUNATO SIOC,
ET AL. (c) Simultaneous with the oral objection, the
objecting party shall also enter his objection
G.R. No. 102648 in the form for written objections to be
November 24, 1999 - prescribed by the Commission. Within
DRS. ALENDRY and twenty-four (24) hours from and after the
FLORA P. CAVILES v. presentation of such an objection, the
EVELYN and RAMON objecting party shall submit the evidence in
T. BAUTISTA support of the objections, which shall be
attached to the form for written objections.
G.R. No. 110559 Within the same period of twenty-four (24)
November 24, 1999 - hours after presentation of the objection, any
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. party may file a written and verified
v. ROLANDO SABAN, opposition to the objection in the form also to
ET AL. be prescribed by the Commission, attaching
thereto supporting evidence, if any. The
G.R. No. 111854 board shall not entertain any objection or
November 24, 1999 - opposition unless reduced to writing in the
BARANGAY BLUE prescribed forms.
RIDGE "A" OF
QUEZON CITY v. The evidence attached to the objection or

COURT OF APPEALS, opposition, submitted by the parties, shall be
ET AL. immediately and formally admitted into the
records of the board by the chairman affixing
G.R. No. 114671 his signature at the back of each and every
November 24, 1999 - page thereof.
AURELIO SALINAS v.
NLRC, ET AL. (d) Upon receipt of the evidence, the board
shall take up the contested returns, consider
G.R. No. 119492 the written objections thereto and opposition,
November 24, 1999 - if any, and summarily and immediately rule
ROLANDO MALINAO, thereon. The board shall enter its ruling on
ET AL. v. NLRC the prescribed form and authenticate the
same by the signatures of its members.
G.R. No. 122006
November 24, 1999 - (e) Any party adversely affected by the ruling
ALLIED of the board shall immediately inform the
INVESTIGATION board if he intends to appeal said ruling. The
BUREAU v. board shall enter said information in the
SECRETARY OF LABOR minutes of the canvass, set aside the returns
& EMPLOYMENT and proceed to consider the other returns.
G.R. No. 132748 (f) After all the uncontested returns have
November 24, 1999 - been canvassed and the contested returns
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ruled upon by it, the board shall suspend the
v. ROLANDO canvass. Within forty-eight (48) hours
PATRIARCA therefrom, any party adversely affected by
the ruling may file with the board a written
G.R. No. 135864 and verified notice of appeal; and within an
November 24, 1999 - unextendible period of five (5) days
AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. thereafter, an appeal may be taken to the
COMELEC, ET AL. Commission.
G.R. No. 138876 (g) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of

November 24, 1999 - appeal, the board shall make an appropriate
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. report to the Commission, elevating therewith
v. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA the complete records and evidence submitted
in the canvass, and furnishing the parties
with copies of the report.
A.M. No. 99-9-141-

MTCC November 25, (h) On the basis of the records and evidence
1999 - HOLD elevated to it by the board, the Commission
DEPARTURE ORDER shall decide summarily the appeal within
ISSUED BY JUDGE seven (7) days from receipt of said records
FELIPE M. ABALOS and evidence. Any appeal brought before the
Commission on the ruling of the board,
A.M. No. MTJ-99- without the accomplished forms and the
1236 November 25, evidence appended thereto, shall be
1999 - GERMAN summarily dismissed.
AGUNDAY v. NIETO T.
TRESVALLES The decision of the Commission shall be
executory after the lapse of seven (7) days
A.M. No. MTJ-99- from receipt thereof by the losing party.
1237 November 25,
1999 - ALFONSO (i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim
LUMIBAO, ET AL. v. any candidate as winner unless authorized by
MAMERTO C. PANAL the Commission after the latter has ruled on
the objections brought to it on appeal by the
G.R. No. 109024 losing party. Any proclamation made in
November 25, 1999 - violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless
HEIRS OF MARCIANO the contested returns will not adversely affect
SANGLE v. COURT OF the results of the election.
APPEALS, ET AL.
13. Matalam v. Comelec, 271 SCRA 733
G.R. No. 109307 (1997); Loong v. Comelec 257 SCRA I
November 25, 1999 - (1996); Dimaporo v. Comelec, 186 SCRA 769
TEODORA SALTIGA (1990); Dipatuan v. Comelec, 185 SCRA 86
DE ROMERO, ET AL. v. (1990).
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL. 14. Dimaporo v. Comelec, supra note 13;
Dipatuan v. Comelec, supra note 13.
G.R. No. 114262
November 25, 1999 - 15. Matalam v. Comelec, supra note 13.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. QUIRINO QUIJADA 16. Petitioner’s memorandum, 9-13.
G.R. No. 119466 17. Rollo, 41, 186.

November 25, 1999 -
SALVADOR and 18. Ibid., 20.

LIGAYA ADORABLE. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, 19. 279 SCRA 19 (1997).
ET AL.
20. Supra note 13.
G.R. No. 122823
November 25, 1999 - 21. Petitioner’s Memorandum, 15-18.
SEA COMMERCIAL
COMPANY v. COURT 22. Ibid., 19-24.
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
23. Matalam v. Comelec, supra note 13.
G.R. No. 123059
November 25, 1999 - 24. Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec. 3 (m).
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDUARDO CAPILLO 25. Casimiro v. Comelec, 171 SCRA 468
(1989).
G.R. No. 124140
November 25, 1999 - 26. Rollo, 42.
BERNARDO B.
RESOSO v. 27. Matalam v. Comelec, supra note 13.
SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 127347

November 25, 1999 -
ALFREDO N. AGUILA Back to Home | Back to Main
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128389

November 25, 1999 -
DON ORESTES
ROMUALDEZ
ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE v.
NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129958

November 25, 1999 -
MIGUEL MELENDRES
v. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 134340

November 25, 1999 -
LININDING
PANGANDAMAN v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 116616

November 26, 1999 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RICARDO
EMBERGA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117929

November 26, 1999 -
CORA VERGARA v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 129955

November 26, 1999 -
MARIANO and
JULIETA MADRIGAL v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 134229

November 26, 1999 -
LITO and JERRY
LIMPANGOG. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
A.M. No. 99-10-10-

SC November 29,
1999 - RE:
DISCIPLINARY
ACTION AGAINST
ANTONIO LAMANO
G.R. No. 116320

November 29, 1999 -
ADALIA FRANCISCO v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 119341

November 29, 1999 -
EDUARDO
FONTANILLA, ET AL.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 119350-

51 November 29,
1999 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MAURO
SUBA
G.R. No. 123307

November 29, 1999 -
SAMUEL BARANGAN v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 124640

November 29, 1999 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JERRY A. CAPCO,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 126800

November 29, 1999 -
NATALIA P.
BUSTAMANTE v.
RODITO F. ROSEL, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 127840

November 29, 1999 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROLAND PARAISO
G.R. No. 128743

November 29, 1999 -
ORO CAM
ENTERPRISES v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 133750

November 29, 1999 -
APEX MINING, ET AL.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133927

November 29, 1999 -
MA. AMELITA C.
VILLAROSA v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 135423

November 29, 1999 -
JESUS L. CHU v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136191

November 29, 1999 -
JESUS O. TYPOCO v.
COMELEC, ET AL.
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Chu Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chu Vs Comelec

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

Chu Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/25/2020 G.R. No. 135423 November 29, 1999 - JESUS L. CHU v. COMELEC, ET AL.

, ET AL. : November 1999 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

November 1999 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 >

[G.R. No. 135423. November 29, 1999.]

JESUS L. CHU, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON

Assailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the

Petitioner Jesus L. Chu and private respondent Salvadora

Petitioner claims that he orally objected to the inclusion

On May 15, 1998, the MBC rejected petitioner’s

While the appeal interposed by the appellant show [sic]

The question to be resolved is whether or not the

of these 37 election returns of the enumerated precincts

Apropos thereto, the Supreme Court in Casimiro v.

"Obviously the evidence relied upon by petitioner to

Aside from said sworn statements, the records do not

proof." cralaw virtua1aw library

Perforce, for insufficiency of evidence, the ruling of the

Petitioner received the Comelec’s order on June 17,

The Code provides that a pre-proclamation controversy

A.M. No. RTJ-98- refers to any question pertaining to or affecting the

G.R. No. 106593 (a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of

The legislative intent behind the summary disposition of

[t]he election returns were prepared under duress,

ADM. MATTER No. threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are obviously

In the recent case Salih v. Comelec, 19 we held that

G.R. No. 131499 And in Matalam v. Comelec, 20 the Court, in rejecting

THE PHIL. v. summary proceeding. He [petitioner] asks the Court to

proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab

G.R. No. 122240 x x x

A.M. No. P-94- Rule 19 - Motions for Reconsideration

G.R. No. 110048 According to petitioner, since he received the Comelec’s

We wish to stress that our ruling in this case merely

G.R. No. 130922 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. 132474

RENATO CENIDO v. Commissioner) and Japal M. Guiani.

G.R. No. 132644 3. Ibid., 184.

November 19, 1999 -

ERNESTO DAVID, ET 4. Ibid., 5.

A.M. No. P-99- 8. Ibid,. 187.

G.R. No. 97914 11. Code, sec. 241.

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Contested Election Returns. —

QUEZON CITY v. The evidence attached to the objection or

G.R. No. 138876 (g) Immediately upon receipt of the notice of

A.M. No. 99-9-141-

G.R. No. 119466 17. Rollo, 41, 186.

SALVADOR and 18. Ibid., 20.

G.R. No. 127347

G.R. No. 128389

G.R. No. 129958

G.R. No. 134340

G.R. No. 116616

G.R. No. 117929

G.R. No. 129955

G.R. No. 134229

A.M. No. 99-10-10-