Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal
Article IX – Constitutional Commissions
Section 7
Title Facts
Galido v. COMELEC Perfecto Galido and Saturnino
GR No. 95346 Galeon were both candidates for
18 January 1991 Mayor in the municipality of Garcia-
Padilla, J. Hernandez, Bohol, for in the 18
January 1988 elections. Galido was
proclaimed Mayor-elect by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Galeon filed an election protest
before the RTC of Bohol, which
upheld Galido’s proclamation who
won by a majority of 11 votes.
Galeon appealed to the COMELEC,
which reversed the decision and
declared Galeon as the winner by a
plurality of 5 votes. The COMELEC
held that 15 ballots in a precinct
containing the initial “C” after the
name “Galido” were marked ballots
and are therefore invalid.
Galido filed a petition for certiorari
and injunction with the SC but was
dismissed due to procedural
infirmities. The MR was also denied
with finality. Undaunted, Galido filed
another petition for certiorari and
injunction and a prayer for a
restraining order which contains the
same allegations as the previous case
which was dismissed. The court
issued the TRO. Galeon moved for
the dismissal of the case.
Salva v. Makalintal Salva, et al, officials and residents of
GR No. 132603 Barangay San Rafael, Calaca,
18 September 2000 Batangas filed a class suit against the
Buena, J. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Batangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of
Calaca, and the COMELEC for
annulment of Ordinance No. 5 and
Resolution No. 345, enacted by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Batangas, and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2987.
Issue/s Ruling
W/N COMELEC’s decision may be YES. The fact that decisions, final
appealed. orders, or rulings of the COMELEC
in contests involving elective
municipal and barangay offices are
final, executory, and not appealable,
does not preclude a recourse to the
SC by way of a special civil action of
certiorari.
However, the Court finds no reason
to overturn COMELEC’s decision. It
did not commit grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it
rendered the questioned decision.
W/N the trial court had jurisdiction to YES. Resolution No. 2987 which
enjoin the COMELEC from provides for the rules and regulations
implementing Resolution No. 2987. governing the conduct of the required
plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to
the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial
functions but merely as an incident of
its inherent administrative functions
over the conduct of plebiscites, thus,
the said resolution may not be
deemed as a final order reviewable
by certiorari by this Court. Any
Doctrine
COMELEC has exclusive original
jurisdiction over all contests relating
to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials and has
appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction or involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial
courts of limited jurisdiction.
The function of a writ of certiorari is
to keep an inferior court or tribunal
within the bounds of its jurisdiction
or to prevent it from committing a
grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
COMELEC has the inherent power to
decide an election contest on physical
evidence, equity, law and justice, and
apply established jurisprudence in
support of its findings and
conclusions; the extent to which such
precedents apply rests on its
discretion, the exercise of which
should not be controlled unless such
discretion has been abused to the
prejudice of either party.
The powers vested by the
Constitution and the law on the
COMELEC may either be classified
as those pertaining to its adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial functions, or those
which are inherently administrative
and sometimes ministerial in
character.
1
 Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

question pertaining to the validity of

Ordinance No. 5 declared the said resolution may well be taken in
abolition of Barangay San Rafael and an ordinary civil action before the
its merger with Barangay Dacanlao, trial courts.
and accordingly instructed the
COMELEC to conduct the required
plebiscite. Resolution No. 345
affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance
No. 5, overriding the veto exercised
by the Governor of Batangas.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2987, on
the other hand, provided for the rules
and regulations governing the
conduct of the required plebiscite
scheduled on 28 February 1998, to
decide the issue of the abolition of
Barangay San Rafael and its merger
with Barangay Dacanlao.

The trial court denied the motion for

the issuance of a TRO and/or
preliminary injunction for lack of
jurisdiction. According to it, any
petition or action questioning an act,
resolution, or decision of the
COMELEC must be brought before
the SC.
Bernardo v. Abalos Antonio Bernardo, et al filed a
GR No. 137266 criminal complaint against Benjamin
5 December 2001 Abalos, Sr. and Jr., and others for
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. vote buying in violation of the
Omnibus Election Code. They
alleged that the Abaloses sponsored
an outing for the public school
teachers who were also registered
voters and members of the Board of
Election Inspectors in Mandaluyong
City, several weeks before the
elections were to take place. Abalos
Sr. also allegedly delivered a speech
promising the said teachers hazard
pay and an increase in their
allowances of a total of P3,000.00.
The COMELEC issued a resolution
dismissing the complaint for
insufficiency of evidence to establish
a prima facie case. The petitioners
then filed a petition for certiorari
with the SC for the nullification of
W/N petitioners’ failure to file the
required motion for reconsideration
with the COMELEC is fatal to their
cause.
YES. Petitioners’ failure to file the A petition for certiorari can only be
required motion for reconsideration resorted to if there is no appeal, or
utterly disregarded the COMELEC any plain, speedy, and adequate
Rules intended to achieve an orderly, remedy in the ordinary course of law.
just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination and disposition of
every action and proceeding brought
before the Commission. A petition
for certiorari can only be resorted to
if there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Having failed
to file the required motion for
reconsideration of the challenged
Resolution, petitioners’ instant
petition is certainly premature.
Significantly, they have not raised
any plausible reason for their direct
recourse to this Court.
2
 Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal
the COMELEC’s Resolution, citing
that it was issued with apparent grave
abuse of discretion. The petition was
filed without first submitting a
motion for reconsideration with the
COMELEC.
c. The COMELEC
Sec. 2. Powers of the COMELEC
Carlos v. Angeles Jose Carlos and Antonio Serapio
GR No. 142907 were candidates for the position of
29 November 2000 mayor of the municipality of
Pardo, J. Valenzuela, Metro Manila during the
11 May 1998 elections.
On 21 May 1998, the Municipal
Board of Canvassers proclaimed Jose
Carlos as the duly elected mayor of
Valenzuela, having obtained the
highest number of votes. On 21 June
1998, Serapio filed with the RTC of
Valenzuela an election protest
challenging the results. Due to the
inhibition of all the RTC judges in
Valenzuela, the case was assigned to
the RTC of Caloocan, presided by
Judge Angeles.
Carlos filed a motion to dismiss,
which was denied. Carlos then
elevated the order to the COMELEC
on petition for certiorari and
prohibition, which remains
unresolved.
The trial court, in its decision, set
aside the final tally of valid votes
because of the finding of “significant
badges of fraud.” It then declared
that there was enough pattern of
fraud in the conduct of the election
for mayor in Valenzuela, and stated
that the said fraud was attributable to
Carlos who had control over the
election paraphernalia and the basic
W/N Judge Angeles committed grave
abuse of discretion when she
declared Serapio as the duly elected
mayor of Valenzuela despite the fact
that she found that Carlos obtained
17,007 valid votes higher than the
valid votes of Serapio.
W/N the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to review, by petition for
certiorari, the decision of the RTC in
an election protest case involving an
elective municipal official
considering that it has no appellate
jurisdiction over such decision.
YES. The trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in rendering
its decision proclaiming Serapio the
duly elected mayor of Valenzuela on
the basis of its perception of the
voice of the people of Valenzuela,
even without a majority or plurality
votes cast in his favor. In fact,
without a single vote in his favor as
the trial court discarded all the votes.
Thus, the decision is not supported
by the highest number of valid votes
cast in his favor. This violated the
right to due process of law of
petitioner who was not heard on the
issue of failure of election, an issue
that was not raised by Serapio. A
decision is void for lack of due
process if, as a result, a party is
deprived of the opportunity of being
heard.
YES. The Supreme Court is vested
with original jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the decision of the
RTC in the election protest before it,
regardless of whether it has appellate
jurisdiction over such decision,
according to Article VIII, Section
5(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
Relative to the appeal that Carlos
filed with the COMELEC, the same
would not bar the present action as
an exception to the rule because
Article VIII, Section 5(1) of the
Constitution: “The Supreme Court
shall have the following powers: (1)
Exercise original jurisdiction over
cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.”
An election means “the choice or
selection of candidates to public
office by popular vote” through the
use of the ballot, and the elective
officials of which are determined
through the will of the electorate.
An election is the embodiment of the
popular will, the expression of the
sovereign power of the people.
Election, in the context of the
Constitution, may refer to the
conduct of the polls, including the
listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting
and counting of votes. The winner is
the candidate who has obtained a
majority or plurality of valid votes
cast in the election.
In case of protest, a revision or
recount of the ballots cast for the
candidates decides the election
protest case. The candidate receiving
the highest number or plurality of
3

Sec. 3. En Banc Sessions
Sarmiento v. COMELEC
GR Nos. 105628, 105725, 105727,
105730, 105771, 105778, 105797,
105919, & 105977
6 August 1992
Davide, Jr., J.
Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal
services in the community such as
the supply of electricity. It then went
on to rule that the perpetuation of
fraud had undoubtedly suppressed
the true will of the electorate of
Valenzuela and substituted it with the
will of Carlos. Notwithstanding the
plurality of votes in favor of Carlos,
the trial court set aside his
proclamation by the Municipal Board
of Canvassers and declared Serapio
as the duly elected mayor of
Valenzuela. Carlos filed a notice of
appeal from the decision of the trial
court to the COMELEC, then filed a
petition with the SC for certiorari and
prohibition, seeking to annul the
decision of the RTC.
COMELEC resolved a number of
cases en banc regarding the appeals
for inclusion and exclusion of certain
election returns and certificates of
canvass, as well as the composition
of a Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Petitioners aver that the resolutions
were issued with grave abuse of
discretion because the COMELEC
took cognizance of and decided the
appeals without first referring them
to any of its Divisions.
W/N the COMELEC should have
heard the appeals en banc.
under the circumstances, appeal
would not be a speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The exception is sparingly allowed in
situations where the abuse of
discretion is not only grave and
whimsical but also palpable and
patent, and the invalidity of the
assailed act is shown on its face.
NO. Election cases include pre-
proclamation controversies, and all
such cases must first be heard by and
decided by a Division of the
Commission. The Commission,
sitting en banc, does not have the
authority to hear and decide the same
at first instance. In the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, pre-proclamation
cases are classified as Special Cases
and, in compliance with the
Constitution, the 2 Divisions of the
Commission are vested with the
authority to hear and decide these
Special Cases.
Indisputably, then, the COMELEC
votes shall be proclaimed the winner.
Even if the candidate receiving the
majority votes is ineligible or
disqualified, the candidate receiving
the next highest number of votes or
the second placer, cannot be declared
elected.
A defeated candidate cannot be
deemed elected to the office. The
right to hold an elective office is
rooted on electoral mandate, not
perceived entitlement to the office.
To declare a failure of election, two
conditions must first occur: first, no
voting has taken place in the
precincts concerned on the date fixed
by law or, even if there were voting,
the election nevertheless resulted in a
failure to elect; and second, the votes
not cast would affect the results of
the election.
Obiter:
The sea of suspicion has no shore,
and the court that embarks upon it is
without rudder or compass.
Section 3, Subdivision C, Article IX
of the 1987 Constitution:
“The Commission on Elections may
sit en banc or in two Divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite
disposition of election cases,
including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases
shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be
decided by the Commission en banc.
4
 Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal
Canicosa v. COMELEC Ricardo “Boy” Canicosa and
GR No. 120318 Severino Lajara were candidates for
5 December 1997 Mayor in Calamba, Laguna during
Bellosillo, J. the 8 May 1995 elections. Lajara was
proclaimed winner by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers.
On 15 May Canicosa filed with the
COMELEC a Petition to Declare
Failure of Election and to Declare
Null and Void the Canvass and
Proclamation because of alleged
widespread frauds and anomalies.
However, the COMELEC en banc
dismissed the petition on the ground
that the allegations therein did not
justify a declaration of failure of
election.
W/N a COMELEC division should
have first heard the petition before
deciding on it en banc on a motion
for reconsideration.
en banc acted without jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion, when
it resolved the appeals of petitioners
in the Special Cases without first
referring them to any of its Divisions.
Said resolutions are, therefore, null
and void and must be set aside.
However, Section 16 of RA 7166
provides that all pre-proclamation
cases pending before it shall be
deemed terminated at the beginning
of the term of the office involved.
Since the terms of office involved in
the Special Cases subject of the
petitions have already commenced,
these cases have been rendered moot
and academic, and must be dismissed
without prejudice to the filing of
petitioners of regular election
protests.
NO. Section 3, Article IX-C applies
only when the COMELEC acts in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial functions and not when it
merely exercises purely
administrative functions. Moreover,
it is expressly provided in Rule 27,
Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure that any party dissatisfied
with the ruling of the board of
canvassers shall have a right to
appeal to the COMELEC en banc.
Questions as to whether elections
have been held or whether certain
returns were falsified or
manufactured and therefore should
be excluded from the canvass do not
involve the right to vote. Such
questions are properly within the
administrative jurisdiction of
COMELEC, hence, may be acted
upon directly by the COMELEC en
banc without having to pass through
any of its divisions.
There are only three instances where
a failure of election may be declared:
namely:
(a) The election in any
polling place has not been
held on the date fixed on
account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud,
or other analogous causes;
(b) The election in any
polling place has been
suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the
closing of the voting on
account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud,
or other analogous causes;
or
(c) After the voting and
during the preparation and
transmission of the
election returns or in the
custody or canvass
thereof, such election
results in a failure to elect
on account of force
majeure, violence,
terrorism, fraud, or other
analogous causes.
5
Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

The question of inclusion or

exclusion from the list of voters
involves the right to vote which is not
within the power and authority of
COMELEC to rule upon. The
determination of whether one has the
right to vote is a justiciable issue
properly cognizable by our regular
courts.

It is only in the exercise of its

adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers
that the COMELEC is mandated to
hear and decide cases first by
Division and then, upon motion for
reconsideration, by the COMELEC
en banc. This is when it is
jurisdictional.

The COMELEC exercises direct and

immediate supervision and control
over national and local officials or
employees, including members of
any national or local law enforcement
agency and instrumentality of the
government required by law to
perform duties relative to the conduct
of elections. Its power to direct
supervision and control includes the
power to review, modify, or set aside
any act of such national and local
officials. It exercises immediate
supervision over the members of the
boards of election inspectors and
canvassers. Its statutory power of
supervision and control includes the
power to revise, reverse, or set aside
the action of the boards, as well as to
do what the boards should have done,
even if questions relative thereto
have not been elevated to it by an
aggrieved party, for such power
includes the authority to initiate motu
proprio or by itself such steps or
actions as may be required pursuant
to law.