Jaramilla vs COMELEC

October 23, 2003

Azcuna, J.
Facts:
Both petitioner and private respondent (Suyat) ran for the position of Member of the Sangguniang
Bayan in Ilocos Sur
The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed the 8 winning members of the Sangguniang Bayan, with
petitioner as #7 and respondent Suyat at #9
Respondent reviewed the votes and found that petitioner was credited with 73 votes for Precinct 34A1
when in reality it should have been 23 only (or simply put, he was credited 50 votes more than he should
have received) If the votes were to be readjusted, Suyat would be placed at #8 while petitioner Jaramilla
will be #9. Suyat filed before the COMELEC en banc, which granted the petition and annulled
Jaramillas proclamation.
WoN COMELEC erred in giving due course to the petition
Held: No.
[Obiter: this was not raised in the petition] The Court discussed the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc in
election cases.
In Milla vs Balmores-Laxa, election cases including pre-proclamation controversies should first be heard and
decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the commission en banc if a motion for reconsideration of
the division is filed.
In Castromayor vs COMELEC, the above-stated provision applies only in cases where the COMELEC
exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, and not when it merely exercises purely administrative
functions.
In this case, the error in the tabulation of the results merely requires a clerical correction without the necessity
of opening ballot boxes or examining ballots, and it demands only the exercise of COMELECs administrative
power; hence, the Commission en banc properly assumed original jurisdiction of the petition. [/Obiter]
1. Petitioner: contends that the petition was filed beyond the 5-day reglementary period in the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure and its lack of certification against forum-shopping
SC: COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice
2. Petitioner: Suyat did not pay the prescribed filing fees
SC: COMELEC is not constrained to dismiss a case before it by reason of non-payment of filing fees.
SEC 18. Nonpayment of Prescribed Fees If the fees above prescribed are not paid, the Commission may
[15]
refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding.
The use of the word may in the aforecited provision readily shows that the COMELEC is conferred the
discretion whether to entertain the petition or not in case of non-payment of legal fees.