EN BANC

[G.R. No. 158371. December 11, 2003.]

SONIA R. LORENZO , petitioner, vs . COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., in his capacity as Chairman,
Commission on Elections, and NESTOR B. MAGNO , respondents.

Jose Ventura Aspiras for petitioner.

Jose P. Balbuena for public respondent.
Romeo C. De la Cruz & Associates for private respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner and respondent Magno were rival candidates for Mayor of San Isidro,
Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 local elections. By virtue of a petition for disquali cation,
the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division disquali ed respondent as a
candidate on the ground of his conviction by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct
bribery. This was a rmed on appeal by the COMELEC En Banc. Consequently, petitioner
was proclaimed as the Mayor-elect. Respondent brought a petition for certiorari before
this Court, assailing his disquali cation by the COMELEC. This Court rendered a decision
declaring that respondent was under no disquali cation to run for mayor. The Court
likewise ruled that inasmuch as petitioner had already been proclaimed as the winning
candidate, the legal remedy of respondent would have been a timely election protest.
Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc ordered the immediate constitution of a new
Municipal Board of Canvassers for the purpose of counting the votes cast for respondent.
Hence, this petition where petitioner argued that the COMELEC's order for the canvassing
of votes defied this Court's ruling that respondent should have filed an election protest.
In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court ruled that as a general rule, the proper
remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested would
be to le a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto. This rule, however,
admits of exceptions, and one of which is where the proclamation was null and void. This
case falls squarely within this exception to the general rule. Since the question of
respondent's eligibility for the position of Mayor was still pending, the canvass which
excluded respondent from the list of quali ed candidates was an incomplete canvass, and
petitioner's proclamation, on the basis thereof, was illegal. An incomplete canvass is illegal
and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. CTDAaE

SYLLABUS

1. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; ELECTION CONTESTS; LAWS GOVERNING

ELECTION CONTESTS MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED. — [E]lection contests involve
public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if
they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the
choice of their elective o cials. Also settled is the rule that laws governing election
contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public o cials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. In an election case, the
court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 candidate elected by the electorate.
2. ID.; ID.; THE FILING OF AN ELECTION PROTEST OR PETITION FOR QUO
WARRANTO IS THE PROPER REMEDY AFTER THE PROCLAMATION OF THE WINNING
CANDIDATE FOR THE POSITION CONTESTED; EXCEPTIONS; CASE AT BAR. — As a general
rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position
contested would be to le a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto. This
rule; however, admits of exceptions, to wit: (1) where the board of canvassers was
improperly constituted; (2) where quo warranto was not the proper remedy; (3) where
what was led was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election protest but a
petition to annul the proclamation; (4) where 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 (5) where the proclamation was null and void.
This case falls squarely within the fth exception to the general rule, i.e. the proclamation
of Lorenzo as Mayor of San Isidro was null and void. As of May 18, 2001, the date on which
Lorenzo was proclaimed Mayor-elect of San Isidro, the question as regards Magno's
quali cations for said post was still pending, and was raised as an issue before this Court
i n certiorari proceedings in G.R. No. 147904. The question of Magno's quali cations for
the o ce of Mayor was not resolved until October 4, 2002, when we expressly ruled that
Magno was quali ed for said post. Since the question of Magno's eligibility for the
position of Mayor was still pending, the canvass which excluded Magno from the list of
quali ed candidates was an incomplete canvass, and Lorenzo's proclamation, on the basis
thereof, was illegal. An incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid
proclamation. cSIACD

3. ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS; HAS THE POWER TO ANNUL AN ILLEGAL CANVASS AND AN ILLEGAL
PROCLAMATION; CASE AT BAR. — In a long line of cases, we have a rmed the power of
the COMELEC to annul an illegal canvass and an illegal proclamation, which respondent
COMELEC has implicitly done in its Resolution of May 13, 2003 and Orders of May 22,
2003 and June 10, 2003.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

Petitioner Sonia R. Lorenzo and respondent Nestor B. Magno were rival candidates
for Mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the local elections of May 14, 2001. A certain Carlos
Montes, resident of San Isidro, led with the Commission on Elections a petition, docketed
as SPA 01-153, for the disquali cation of respondent Magno as a candidate on the ground
of his conviction by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of Direct Bribery. On May 7, 2001,
the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution disqualifying respondent Magno. This
was affirmed on appeal by the COMELEC En Banc on May 12, 2001.
The aforesaid Resolution was disseminated for implementation by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of San Isidro. Hence, on May 18, 2001, petitioner Lorenzo was
proclaimed as the Mayor-elect of San Isidro.
Meanwhile, respondent Magno brought a petition for certiorari before this Court,
assailing his disquali cation by the COMELEC, which petition was docketed as G.R. No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 147904. On October 4, 2002, this Court rendered a Decision reversing and setting aside
the two challenged Resolutions of the COMELEC dated May 7 and 12, 2001, and declaring
that Magno was under no disquali cation to run for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the
May 14, 2001 elections. The relevant portion of the Decision reads:
[A]lthough [Magno's] crime of direct bribery involved moral turpitude,
petitioner nonetheless could not be disquali ed from running in the 2001
elections. Article 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) must yield to Article
40 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). [Magno]'s disquali cation ceased
as of March 5, 2000 and he was therefore under no such disquali cation
anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001
elections.

Unfortunately, however, neither this Court nor this case is the proper forum
to rule on (1) the validity of Sonia Lorenzo's proclamation and (2) the declaration
of petitioner as the rightful winner. Inasmuch as Sonia Lorenzo had already been
proclaimed as the winning candidate, the legal remedy of petitioner would have
been a timely election protest.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
challenged resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated May 7, 2001 and
May 12, 2001 are hereby reversed and set aside. The petitioner's prayer in his
supplemental petition for his proclamation as the winner in the May 14, 2001
mayoralty elections in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, not being within our jurisdiction, is
hereby denied.

SO ORDERED. 1

On October 21, 2002, respondent Magno led an Omnibus Motion with the
COMELEC in SPA 01-153, seeking: (a) that his name be reinstated in the certi ed list of
candidates for municipal mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in the May 14, 2001 local
election; (b) the nulli cation of the proclamation of Lorenzo as mayor of San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija; (c) that a special board of canvassers be formed to continue the canvas of votes
cast in favor of respondent Magno; and (d) after completion of the canvas, that Magno be
proclaimed the winner.
The COMELEC En Banc thereafter issued a Resolution dated May 13, 2003, wherein
it (a) ordered the creation of new Boards of Election Inspectors for all precincts in the
municipality of San Isidro, for the purpose of counting the votes cast for Magno and
preparing new election returns for submission to the Municipal Board of Canvassers of
San Isidro; and (b) constituted a new Municipal Board of Canvassers for the purpose of
canvassing said election returns and submitting the results to the COMELEC. SITCEA

Subsequently, on May 22, 2003, the COMELEC partially modi ed the above
Resolution to order the immediate constitution of a new Municipal Board of Canvassers, it
appearing that the old Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija had
already canvassed all the election returns for all precincts except the votes for Magno. The
COMELEC reiterated the directive in an Order dated June 10, 2003, and ordered the
immediate implementation and execution thereof.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus, assailing the validity of the
Resolution dated May 13, 2003 and the Orders dated May 22, 2003 and June 10, 2003.
On June 17, 2003, this Court directed public respondents to observe the status quo
prevailing before the filing of the petition.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioner argues that the COMELEC's order for the canvass of votes de es this
Court's ruling in G.R. No. 147904 that Magno should have filed an election protest.
We find in favor of the respondent.
Well settled is the doctrine that election contests involve public interest, and
technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an
obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective
o cials. 2 Also settled is the rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally
construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public o cials may not be
defeated by mere technical objections. 3 In an election case, the court has an imperative
duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the
electorate. 4

As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate
for the position contested would be to le a regular election protest or a petition for quo
warranto. 5 This rule, however, admits of exceptions, to wit: (1) where the board of
canvassers was improperly constituted; (2) where quo warranto was not the proper
remedy; (3) where what was led was not really a petition for quo warranto or an election
protest but a petition to annul the proclamation; (4) where 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 (5) where the proclamation was
null and void. 6
This case falls squarely within the fth exception to the general rule, i.e. the
proclamation of Lorenzo as Mayor of San Isidro was null and void. As of May 18, 2001, the
date on which Lorenzo was proclaimed Mayor-elect of San Isidro, the question as regards
Magno's quali cations for said post was still pending, and was raised as an issue before
this Court in certiorari proceedings in G.R. No. 147904. The question of Magno's
quali cations for the o ce of Mayor was not resolved until October 4, 2002, when we
expressly ruled that Magno was qualified for said post. 7
Since the question of Magno's eligibility for the position of Mayor was still pending,
the canvass which excluded Magno from the list of quali ed candidates was an
incomplete canvass, and Lorenzo's proclamation, on the basis thereof, was illegal. An
incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. 8
In a long line of cases, we have a rmed the power of the COMELEC to annul an
illegal canvass and an illegal proclamation, 9 which respondent COMELEC has implicitly
done in its Resolution of May 13, 2003 and Orders of May 22, 2003 and June 10, 2003.
Moreover, as correctly argued by the Solicitor General, respondent Magno cannot be
faulted for his failure to le an election protest. 1 0 The question of his quali cation or
disquali cation for the position of Mayor had not yet been settled as of the expiration of
the ten-day reglementary period. As such, Magno was not yet eligible to le an election
protest and, therefore, the fact that no such protest was led should not be an impediment
to his proclamation as mayor if the results of the canvass of the new Municipal Board of
Canvassers would show that he garnered the highest number of votes.
Petitioner's other contentions — that she was denied due process, 1 1 and that the
COMELEC Chairman modi ed an en banc resolution without notice and hearing 1 2 —
deserve scant consideration.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 First, the records of the case clearly show that petitioner was given full opportunity
to participate in SPA 01-153, both via due notice of and attendance at hearings and the
opportunity to submit memoranda and pleadings.
Second, there was no substantial modi cation of the COMELEC's En Banc
Resolution dated May 13, 2003. The Orders issued by respondent COMELEC Chairman
dated May 22, 2003 and June 10, 2003 were merely to implement the COMELEC En Banc's
Resolution, with the end goal of canvassing the votes cast in the most expeditious way
possible.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution
dated May 13, 2003, and the Orders dated May 22, 2003 and June 10, 2003 of the
Commission on Elections, which (a) ordered the creation of a new Board of Election
Inspectors for all precincts in the municipality of San Isidro in Nueva Ecija; and (b) ordered
the immediate constitution of a new Municipal Board of Canvassers in San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. aTADcH

Davide, Jr., C .J ., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,

Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Nestor B. Magno v. Commission on Elections and Carlos C. Montes , G.R. No. 147904, 4
October 2002.

2. Juliano v. Court of Appeals , 127 Phil. 207 (1967). See also Benito v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 106053, 17 August 1994, 235 SCRA 436; Bince v. Commission on
Elections, 312 Phil. 316 (1995).
3. Gardiner v. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521 (1914); Galang v. Miranda, 35 Phil. 269 (1916); Macasundig
v. Macalañgan, 121 Phil. 554 (1965); Cauton v. Commission on Elections, 126 Phil. 291
(1967).
4. Ibasco v. Ilao, 110 Phil. 553 (1960).
5. Laodenio v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 122391, 7 August 1997, 276 SCRA 705;
Torres v. Commission on Elections, 337 Phil. 270 (1997).
6. Laodenio v. Commission on Elections, supra.
7. Nestor B. Magno v. Commission on Elections and Carlos C. Montes, G.R. No. 147904, 4
October 2002.
8. Mañara v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 141534-35, 13 December 2000, 347 SCRA
633.
9. Albano v. Arranz, 114 Phil. 318 (1962); Dema les v. Commission on Elections , 129 Phil. 792
(1967); Aguam v. Commission on Elections, 132 Phil. 353 (1968).
10. Rollo, pp. 148-149.
11. Rollo, pp. 12-15.
12. Rollo, pp. 2, 13-15.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com