8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J.

Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™ |

chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Custom Search Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court
Jurisprudence >

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 135996. September 30, 1999]

EMILIANO R. BOY CARUNCHO III, Petitioner,

v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and
The Chairman ATTY. CASIANO ATUEL, JR.
and MEMBERS, ATTY. GRACE S. BELVIS, DR.

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 1/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

FLORENTINA R. LIZANO, City Board of

Canvassers, City of Pasig, Respondents.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Petitioner Emiliano R. Caruncho III was the

candidate of the Liberal Party for the
congressional seat in the lone district of Pasig
City at the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections.
The other candidates were: Arnulfo G. Acedera,
Jr. (Lakas-NUCD-UMDP); Marcelino P. Arias
(Nacionalista Party); Roberto C. Bassig
(Independent); Esmeraldo T. Batacan (PDR-LM
Coalition); Henry P. Lanot (LAMMP); Francisco C.
Rivera, Jr. (PRP/PDR); Elpidio G. Tuason
(Independent), and Raoul V. Victorino (Liberal
Party/LAMMP).

At 9:00 oclock in the morning of May 12, 1998,

respondent Pasig City Board of Canvassers
composed of Atty. Casiano Atuel, Jr. as
Chairman, Atty. Grace S. Belvis as Vice-
Chairman, and Dr. Florentina Lizano as Member,
started to canvass the election returns. The
canvass was proceeding smoothly when the
Board received intelligence reports that one of
the candidates for the congressional race, retired
General Arnulfo Acedera, and his supporters,
might disrupt and stop the canvassing.

At exactly 6:00 oclock in the evening of May 14,

1998, General Acedera and his supporters
stormed the Caruncho Stadium in San Nicolas,
Pasig City, where the canvassing of election
returns was being conducted. They allegedly
forced themselves into the canvassing area,
breaking a glass door in the process. As
pandemonium broke loose, the police fired
warning shots causing those present in the
canvassing venue, including the members of the
Board and canvassing units, to scamper for
safety. The canvassing personnel exited through
the backdoors bringing with them the Election
Returns they were canvassing and tallying as
well as the Statement of Votes that they were
accomplishing. They entrusted these documents
to the City Treasurers Office and the Pasig
Employment Service Office (PESO). Election
documents and paraphernalia were scattered all
over the place when the intruders left.

The following day, May 15, 1998, the sub-

canvassing units recovered the twenty-two (22)
Election Returns and the Statement of Votes
from the Treasurers Office and the PESO.
However, page 2 of each of the 22 election
returns, which contained the names of
candidates for congressmen, had been detached
and could not be found. An investigation was
conducted to pinpoint liability for the loss but it
yielded negative result. Hence, the Board

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 2/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

secured proper authority from the Commission

on Elections (COMELEC),1 through Election
Director for the National Capital Region Atty.
Teresita Suarez, for the reconstitution of the
missing page by making use of the other copies
of the election returns, particularly the provincial
copy or the copy in the ballot boxes placed
therein by the Board of Election Inspectors.

At 2:40 a.m. of May 17, 1998, the Board,

satisfied that it had finished canvassing the
1,491 election returns from as many clustered
precincts, proclaimed Henry P. Lanot as the
winner in the congressional race for the lone
district of Pasig.2 The votes obtained by the
leading three candidates were: Henry P. Lanot
60,914 votes; Emiliano R. Boy Caruncho III
42,942 votes, and Arnulfo Acedera 36,139 votes.
The winner, Lanot, led his closest rival,
Caruncho, by 17,971 votes.

However, on May 21, 1998, petitioner Caruncho

filed a Motion to Nullify Proclamation on the
Basis of Incomplete Returns3 with the COMELEC.
He alleged that the Board had proceeded with
the proclamation of Henry Lanot as the winning
congressional candidate even though one
hundred forty-seven (147) election returns
involving about 30,000 votes, were still not
canvassed. He prayed that the COMELEC en banc
declare the proclamation null and void and that
the Board of Canvassers be directed to convene
and reopen the ballot boxes to recount the votes
of the candidates for the House of
Representatives and thereupon proclaim the
winner. On June 1, 1998, petitioner filed an
amended motion to correct some errors in the
listing of precincts under paragraph 10, pages 2
and 3, and paragraph 12, pages 3 and 4, of the
original motion.4 cräläwvirtualibräry

On June 8, 1998, the Second Division of the

COMELEC issued an Order requiring respondent
Pasig City Board of Canvassers to comment on
the amended motion to nullify Lanots
proclamation. In his comment filed on June 23,
1998, respondent Atty. Casiano G. Atuel, Jr.
admitted the disruption and stoppage of the
canvass of election returns on May 11, 1998 but
asserted that there were only twenty-two (22)
election returns, not 147 as claimed by
Caruncho, that were missing but these were
eventually recovered. The Board stated in part:

x x x. Contrary to the insinuation of Atty. Irene

D. Jurado, only 22 Election Returns were
reported missing. On the following day, May 15,
1998, the sub-canvassing units have recovered
the 22 missing Election Returns and the
Statement of Votes from the Treasurers Office
and from the Pasig Employment Service Office
(PESO). There are no missing election returns.

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 3/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

That to the surprise of the Board and of the 22

canvassing units, they found out that Page 2 of
the 22 Election Returns they recovered were
detached and missing. We wish to inform the
Commission that Page 2 of the Local Election
Returns contained the name of candidates for
Congressman. We conducted investigation on
who did the detachment of Page 2 of the 22
Election Returns. However, nobody from the
Treasurers Office nor from the PESO admitted
that they committed such election offense.

It is impossible that 147 Election Returns were

missing. The COMELEC Instruction is very
specific that only Election Returns to be
canvassed are suppose(d) to be brought out
from the Ballot Boxes containing still
uncanvassed Election Returns. The instruction
further stated that once it was read by the
Board, it will be stamped `READ and then deliver
the same (sic) to the 22 sub-canvassing units.
Sub-canvassing units cannot get another
Election Returns unless the same is finished,
tallied, stamped as `CANVASSED, and submit
the same to the Secretariat and placed inside a
separate ballot boxes with stamped `READ and
`CANVASSED (sic) sealed with metal seals,
padlocked, chained and padlocked again. It was
at this time where (sic) the sub-canvassing units
will get another Election Returns from the Board
for tally and so on. Sub-canvassing units are not
allowed to canvass 2 or more Election Returns at
one time. This was the very reason why only 22
Election Returns were reported missing but were
recovered without Page 2.

That at the very start of the proceeding, the

leading candidates for Congressman were as
follows:

HENRY LANOT - FIRST

EMILIANO CARUNCHO - SECOND

ARNULFO ACEDERA - THIRD

As the canvass goes on, Henry Lanot was leading

Caruncho by thousands. Very few Election
Returns have Caruncho leading and even if
leading, the lead was only a few votes.

Proper authorities from the Commission on

Elections was secured through Atty. Teresita C.
Suarez, Election Director for National Capital
Region for the purpose of making use of other
copies of the Election Returns particularly the
Provincial Copy or the Copy in the Ballot Boxes.
Fortunately, the authorities arrived on time so
that the Board of Canvassers waste(d) no time in
opening the Ballot Boxes to retrieve the copies
from the Board of Canvassers left inside the
Ballot Boxes by the careless Board of Election
Inspectors. Provincial copies were used as well in

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 4/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

the reconstitution of the missing page 2 of the

22 recovered Election Returns.

That there was no truth on the insinuation made

by Atty. Irene D. Jurado that there were 147
Election Returns which were not canvassed
which will affect the result of election for
Emiliano Caruncho. The Board did everything to
have all election returns accounted forth (sic).
We let no stone unturned before we finally come
to the conclusion. That we have finished
canvassing the 1,491 Election Returns and
proclaimed the winning candidates.

That granting without admitting that there were

missing Election Returns which were
uncanvassed, and if ordered canvass(ed), the
more Lanot will widen his lead because the trend
was that Henry Lanots lead swollen (sic) as more
election returns were canvassed.

That for the first time, I am revealing this

shocking fact to the Commission on Elections
that on two (2) occasions, an unidentified
persons (sic) talked to me at the unholy hours of
the night 2 days while canvassing was going on
and offered me TWO MILLION (P2,000,000.00)
PESOS in cold cash just to proclaim `BOY as the
elected Congressman. I declined the offer and
told the man that I am a straight man, I am on
the level, I have a family and I am about to
retire. x x x.

That at 2:40 A.M. of May 17, 1998, the Board of

Canvassers proclaimed all the winning
candidates for Local positions. As to the
Congressman, the following results are as
follows:

HENRY LANOT - 60,914 votes

EMILIANO `BOY CARUNCHO - 42,942

votes

ARNULFO ACEDERA - 36,139 votes

The lead of Henry Lanot from Emiliano Caruncho

was 17, 971 votes.

x x x .5 cräläwvirtualibräry

On June 24, 1998, the COMELEC Second

Division6 promulgated a Resolution7 decreeing
as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this

Commission:

1. Declares that the proclamation of the winning

congressional candidate of Pasig City as NULL
AND VOID;

2. Orders that the respondents-Members of the

City Board of Canvassers of Pasig City to
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 5/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

RECONVENE at the Session Hall of the

Commission and use the Comelec copy of the
one hundred forty-seven (147) election returns
above-mentioned and CANVASS said authentic
copy of the election returns and include the
results thereof with the tally of all election
returns previously canvassed and, thereafter,
PROCLAIM the winning candidate; and

3. Orders the Law Department of this

Commission to investigate candidate Arnulfo
Acedera and if after the investigation, the
evidence so warrant, to file the necessary
charges against him.

SO ORDERED.

Subsequently, on June 26, 1998,

respondent Board filed a Supplemental
Comment raising the following matters: (a)
the COMELEC had no jurisdiction over the
case under Section 242 of the Omnibus
Election Code; (b) petitioner failed to record
his objections to the elections returns and
the certificate of canvass in the minutes of
the proceedings of the Board, and (c) the
winning candidate, Henry Lanot, was not
impleaded in the motion to nullify his
proclamation.8 cräläwvirtualibräry

On July 8, 1998, proclaimed winning

candidate Henry Lanot filed a motion for
leave to intervene in the case.9 He also
prayed for the reconsideration of the June
24, 1998 Resolution of the COMELEC Second
Division and for referral of the case to the
COMELEC en banc. In his motion for
reconsideration10 that was attached to said
motion to intervene, movant Lanot argued
that failure to notify him of the case was
fatal as he was a real party in interest who
must be impleaded therein. He also alleged
that under the Constitution and Republic
Act No. 7166, the COMELEC had no
jurisdiction over the case and that the
Resolution of June 24, 1998 was not based
on facts.

That same day, Petitioner, represented by

new counsel,11 filed a motion praying for
the formation of a new Board of Canvassers
on account of the June 24, 1998 Resolution
of the COMELEC Second Division.12 The
following day, the COMELEC Second
Division issued an order setting the case for
hearing and postponing the reconvening of
the City Board of Canvassers of Pasig
City.13 On July 15, 1998, movant Lanot filed
an opposition to the motion for the
formation of a new Board of Canvassers on
the ground that the Resolution of June 24,
1998 is null and void for the following
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 6/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

reasons: (a) he was not notified of the

proceedings and therefore his right to due
process was violated; (b) said resolution
had not become final and executory by his
filing of a motion for reconsideration, and
(c) the case was no longer a pre-
proclamation controversy but an electoral
protest under the jurisdiction of the House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, not
the COMELEC.14 cräläwvirtualibräry

At the hearing on July 21, 1998, the

COMELEC Second Division ordered the filing
of memorandum. Movant Lanot, however,
manifested that he was no longer filing a
memorandum. Thus, the COMELEC, ruled
that with or without said memorandum, the
case would be deemed submitted for
resolution.15 Meanwhile, on July 27, 1998,
petitioner filed an opposition to Lanots
motion for reconsideration16 after which
Lanot filed his comment on the
opposition.17 cräläwvirtualibräry

On September 28, 1998, the COMELEC

Second Division granted Lanots motion for
intervention and elevated his motion for
reconsideration to the COMELEC en
banc. 18 cräläwvirtualibräry

Thereafter, the COMELEC en banc19

promulgated a Resolution dated October 1,
1998 reconsidering the Resolution of the
COMELEC Second Division and dismissing
petitioners amended motion (petition) to
nullify the proclamation on the basis of
incomplete returns for lack of merit.20
Relying on facts narrated by the Pasig City
Board of Canvassers in its comment on the
motion to nullify the proclamation, the
COMELEC en banc found:

Thus, the board of canvassers did

everything to have all election returns
accounted for, and finished canvassing all
the election returns of 1,491 clustered
precincts of Pasig City. On the basis of the
canvass, the board proclaimed the winning
candidates for local positions. As to the
winning candidate for congressman, the
results were as follows:

Henry P. Lanot - 60,914 votes

Emiliano `Boy Caruncho - 42,942

votes

Arnulfo Acedera - 36,139 votes

However, granting arguendo that there

were missing twenty-two (22) election
returns involving about 4,400 votes, the

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 7/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

same no longer affect the results of the

election as candidate Henry P. Lanot
obtained the highest number of votes, with
a lead of 17,971 votes over his closest rival,
Emiliano `Boy Caruncho. The board of
canvassers duly proclaimed candidate
Henry P. Lanot as the winning
representative of the lone district of Pasig
City.

Consequently, we find without basis

petitioners allegation that the proclamation
of Henry P. Lanot was based on an
incomplete canvass. We carefully examined
the Comelec copies of the Statement of
Votes and found no truth to the assertion
that there were one hundred forty seven
(147) election returns not canvassed.

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Petitioner seeks to nullify respondent

COMELEC en bancs Resolution of October 1,
1998, contending that said body acted in
excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse
of discretion in overruling his claim that
147 election returns involving about thirty
thousand (30,000) votes were not
canvassed. Petitioner argued that it was
enough reason for contesting the
proclamation of Lanot as winner under an
incomplete canvass. However, as in the
proceedings before the COMELEC, petitioner
failed to implead in the instant petition the
proclaimed winning candidate, Lanot.

The petition must be dismissed.

Petitioner initiated this case through a

motion to nullify the proclamation of Lanot
as the winner in the congressional race in
Pasig City. Named respondents in the
motion were the individual members of the
Board of Canvassers in that city. The
proclaimed winner was not included among
the respondents. For that reason alone, the
COMELEC should have been forewarned of a
procedural lapse in the motion that would
affect the substantive rights of the winning
candidate, if not the electorate. Due process
in quasi-judicial proceedings before the
COMELEC requires due notice and
hearing. 21 The proclamation of a winning
candidate cannot be annulled if he has not
been notified of the motion to set aside his
proclamation.22 It was only the
intervention of Lanot in SPC 98-123, which
the Second Division of the COMELEC
allowed, which cured the procedural lapse
that could have affected the popular will of
the electorate.

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 8/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

However, petitioner again failed to implead

Lanot in the instant petition for certiorari.
In this connection, Section 2, Rule 3 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in
interest. By real interest is meant a present
substantial interest, as distinguished from a
mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
subordinate, or consequential interest.23 As
the winning candidate whose proclamation
is sought to be nullified, Henry P. Lanot is a
real party in interest in these proceedings.
The COMELEC and the Board of Canvassers
of Pasig City are mere nominal parties
whose decision should be defended by the
real party in interest, pursuant to Rule 65 of
the said Rules:

SEC. 5. Respondents and costs in certain

cases. When the petition filed relates to the
acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation,
board, officer or person, the petitioner shall
join, as private respondent or respondents
with such public respondent or
respondents, the person or persons
interested in sustaining the proceedings in
the court; and it shall be the duty of such
private respondents to appear and defend,
both in his or their own behalf and in behalf
of the public respondent or respondents
affected by the proceedings, and the costs
awarded in such proceedings in favor of the
petitioner shall be against the private
respondents only, and not against the
judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person
impleaded as public respondent or
respondents.

Unless otherwise specifically directed by

the court where the petition is pending, the
public respondents shall not appear in or
file an answer or comment to the petition or
any pleading therein. If the case is elevated
to a higher court by either party, the public
respondents shall be included therein as
nominal parties. However, unless otherwise
specifically directed by the court, they shall
not appear or participate in the proceedings
therein. (Underscoring supplied.)

Hence, quasi-judicial agencies should be

joined as public respondents but it is the
duty of the private respondent to appear
and defend such agency.24 That duty
cannot be fulfilled by the real party in
interest such as the proclaimed winning
candidate in a proceeding to annul his
proclamation if he is not even named as
private respondent in the petition.

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 9/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

Ordinarily, the nonjoinder of an

indispensable party or the real party in
interest is not by itself a ground for the
dismissal of the petition. The court before
which the petition is filed must first require
the joinder of such party. It is the
noncompliance with said order that would
be a ground for the dismissal of the
petition.25 However, this being an election
case which should be resolved with
dispatch considering the public interest
involved, the Court has not deemed it
necessary to require that Henry P. Lanot be
impleaded as a respondent in this case.

A crucial issue in this petition is what body

has jurisdiction over a proclamation
controversy involving a member of the
House of Representatives. The 1987
Constitution cannot be more explicit in this
regard. Article VI thereof states:

Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of

Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. x x x.

The foregoing constitutional provision is

reiterated in Rule 14 of the 1991 Revised
Rules of the Electoral Tribunal of the House
of Representatives, to wit:

RULE 14. Jurisdiction. The Tribunal shall be

the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the
Members of the House of Representatives.

In the recent case of Rasul v. COMELEC and

Aquino-Oreta,26 the Court, in interpreting
the aforesaid constitutional provision,
stressed the exclusivity of the Electoral
Tribunals jurisdiction over its members,
thus:

Section 17, Article VI of the 1987

Constitution as well as Section 250 of the
Omnibus Election Code provide that (t)he
Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members.
x x x. In Javier v. Comelec (144 SCRA 194),
this Court interpreted the phrase election,
returns and qualifications as follows:

The phrase election, returns and

qualifications should be interpreted in its
totality as referring to all matters affecting
the validity of the contestees title. But if it
is necessary to specify, we can say that
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 10/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

election referred to the conduct of the polls,

including the listing of voters, the holding
of the electoral campaign, and the casting
and counting of the votes; returns to the
canvass of the returns and the proclamation
of the winners, including questions
concerning the composition of the board of
canvassers and the authenticity of the
election returns; and qualifications to
matters that could be raised in a quo
warranto proceeding against the
proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or
ineligibility or the inadequacy of his
certificate of candidacy.

The word sole in Section 17, Article VI of

the 1987 Constitution and Section 250 of
the Omnibus Election Code underscore the
exclusivity of the Tribunals jurisdiction over
election contests relating to its members.
Inasmuch as petitioner contests the
proclamation of herein respondent Teresa
Aquino-Oreta as the 12th winning
senatorial candidate, it is the Senate
Electoral Tribunal which has exclusive
jurisdiction to act on the complaint of
petitioner. x x x.

In the same vein, considering that

petitioner questions the proclamation of
Henry Lanot as the winner in the
congressional race for the sole district of
Pasig City, his remedy should have been to
file an electoral protest with the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET).27 cräläwvirtualibräry

Even granting arguendo that the thrust of

petitioners case is to question the integrity
of the election returns or the validity of the
incomplete canvass as the basis for Henry
Lanots proclamation, and not the
proclamation itself, still, the instant petition
is devoid of merit.

The factual question of how many election

returns were missing as a consequence of
the disruption of the canvassing of election
returns has been definitely resolved by the
COMELEC en banc. Thus, raising the same
issue before this Court is pointless because
this Court is not a trier of facts.28 The facts
established below show that all the legal
steps necessary to carry out the
reconstitution of the missing page 2 of the
twenty-two (22) election returns have been
followed. Proper authorization for the
reconstitution of that page was secured
from the COMELEC. The reconstitution was
based on the provincial copy of the election
returns that was retrieved from the sealed
ballot boxes. For his part, petitioner failed
to have the anomaly recorded in the
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 11/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

minutes of proceedings of respondent

Board as required by Section 15 of Republic
Act No. 7166. Respondent Board, therefore,
observed the following provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code:

SEC. 233. When the election returns are

delayed, lost or destroyed. In case its copy
of the election returns is missing, the board
of canvassers shall, by messenger or
otherwise, obtain such missing election
returns from the board of election
inspectors concerned, or if said returns
have been lost or destroyed, the board of
canvassers, upon prior authority of the
Commission, may use any of the authentic
copies of said election returns or a certified
copy of said election returns issued by the
Commission, and forthwith direct its
representative to investigate the case and
immediately report the matter to the
Commission.

The board of canvassers, notwithstanding

the fact that not all the election returns
have been received by it, may terminate the
canvass and proclaim the candidates
elected on the basis of the available
election returns if the missing election
returns will not affect the results of the
election.

Granting that the proclamation was made

without taking into account the twenty-two
(22) election returns, still, the COMELEC did
not abuse its discretion. The election
returns represented only 4,400 votes. That
number cannot affect the result of the
election because Henry Lanots lead over his
closest rival, herein petitioner, was 17,971
votes. As the second paragraph of Section
233 of the Omnibus Election Code
aforequoted states, the Board of
Canvassers could have totally disregarded
the twenty-two (22) election returns and
legally proclaimed Lanot as the winner in
the election in Pasig City for Member of the
House of Representatives.

An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal

and cannot be the basis of a subsequent
proclamation.29 A canvass cannot be
reflective of the true vote of the electorate
unless all returns are considered and none
is omitted.30 However, this is true only
where the election returns missing or not
counted will affect the results of the
election. It bears stressing that in the case
at bar, the COMELEC has categorically found
that the election returns which were not
counted by respondent canvassers
represented only 4,400 votes. To be sure,
this number will not affect the result of the
www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 12/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc

election considering that Lanots lead over

petitioner was already 17,971 votes.

On the whole, this Court finds that

respondent COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it issued the
assailed Resolution of October 1, 1998
dismissing petitioners motion to nullify the
proclamation of Henry P. Lanot as Member
of the House of Representatives for the lone
district of Pasig City.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for

certiorari is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,

Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, and
Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Pardo, J., no part.

Endnotes:

1 Footnote 1 of COMELEC en banc Resolution dated

October 1, 1998 in SCC 98-123 states: Acting on the
Memordandum of NCR Director Atty. Teresita C. Suarez
dated May 12, 1998, Chairman Pardo as Commissioner-
In-Charge of NCR, approved opening of ballot boxes and
retrieval of election returns in cases where all copies of
the election returns were all placed inside the ballot
boxes.
2 Record of SPC 98-123, p. 72.
3 Rollo, p. 32.
4 Ibid., p. 52.
5 Rollo, pp. 89-91; Record, pp. 34-37.
6 Composed of Commissioners Julio F. Desamito and
Japal M. Guiani.
7 Rollo, p. 59.
8 Record, p. 55.
9 Ibid., p. 58.
10 Ibid., p. 61.
11 Froilan M. Bacungan and Associates.
12 Record, p. 85.
13 Ibid., p. 97.
14 Ibid., p. 103.
15 Ibid., p. 112.
16 Ibid., p. 113.
17 Ibid., p. 122.
18 Ibid., p. 131.
1919 Per COMELEC Chairman Bernardo P. Pardo, with
Commissioners Julio F. Desamito, Teresita Dy-Liacco
Flores, Japal M. Guiani, Luzviminda G. Tancangco and
Abdul Gani M. Marohombsar, Al Hadj concurring.
Commissioner Manolo B. Gorospe took no part.
20 Rollo, p. 73.
21Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 106271, February 9,
1993, 218 SCRA 782, 792-793.
22Jagunap v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 53062 & 53345, April
24, 1981, 104 SCRA 204, 213.

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 13/14
8/6/2019 Caruncho vs Comelec : 135996 : September 30, 1999 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc
23 De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 254, 265
(1997).
24 FERIA, 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Annotated), 1997 ed., p. 267.
25 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

26 G.R. No. 134142, August 24, 1999.

27 Pangilinan v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 105278, November
18, 1993, 228 SCRA 36.
28David-Chan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1140, 1148
(1997).
29 Datu Sukarno Samad v. Commission on Elections, 224
SCRA 631, 642 (1993); Tiglao v. Commission on
Elections, 31 SCRA 719, 729 (1970); Mutuc v.
Commission on Elections, 22 SCRA 662, 666 (1968);
Demafiles v. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 1462,
1468 (1967).
30Duremdes v. Commission on Elections, 178 SCRA 746,
758 (1989); citing Datu Sinsuat v. Pendatun, L-31501,
June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1999/sept99/135996.php 14/14