[G.R. No. 105365. June 2, 1992.]
ALBERTO A. DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR THE CITY OF MANILA AND IRMA ALFONSO, respondents.
RESOLUTION
Gentlemen :
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 2, 1992
G.R. No. 105365 (Alberto A. Domingo vs. City Board of Canvassers for the City of Manila and Irma Alfonso)
"For resolution by the Court is the special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioner seeking to enjoin the City Board of Canvassers for the City of Manila from proclaiming private respondent Irma Alfonso as a winner in the 11 May 1992 elections, for the position of city councilor for the First District of Manila.
Petitioner alleges the following, inter alia:
1. On 23 March 1992, petitioner filed with the COMELEC his certificate of candidacy for the position of city councilor for the First District of Manila in the 11 May 1992 elections. Another candidate, Pedro P. Alfonso, father of private respondent Irma Alfonso also filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position aforementioned. Pedro Alfonso, however, died of natural cause on 10 May 1992, a day before the elections. Private respondent Irma Alfonso filed her certificate of candidacy in substitution of her deceased father before noon of 11 May 1992.
In the election returns and tally sheets for the First District of Manila, the name of Pedro Alfonso was not deleted even though he had earlier died and was substituted by his daughter-private respondent, while the name of Irma Alfonso was added to the list of candidates appearing in the said returns and sheets. During the counting of votes, Pedro Alfonso and Irma Alfonso received their respective tallies on the basis of the separate votes cast for each of them.
2. After the canvass of votes on the basis of the election returns, Pedro Alfonso received 34,274 votes which garnered for him the No. 4 standing in the ranking of winning candidates, whereas petitioner received 28,389 votes which garnered for him the No. 7 position. Respondent Irma Alfonso received votes which did not make her even one of the top ten (10) winning candidates.
3. It appearing that the deceased Pedro Alfonso garnered votes that would include him in the list of winning candidates, the Board of Canvassers decided to add the votes received by the deceased Pedro Alfonso to those of his daughter Irma Alfonso, (thus elevating the latter as one of the winning candidates), and to proclaim her (Irma Alfonso) as one of the elected city councilors for the First District of the City of Manila.
Petitioner alleges that since he received 28,389 votes, he would rank no. 6 among the winning candidates, if the votes cast for deceased Pedro Alfonso alone were not counted for Irma Alfonso. He avers that he does not contest the number of votes received by Pedro Alfonso and Irma Alfonso, but what he assails is the act of the City Board of Canvassers in adding the votes cast for Pedro Alfonso to those of private respondent Irma Alfonso.
Petitioner principally contends that Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code 1/ (Candidates in case of death, qualification or withdrawal of another) means that in the appreciation of votes, only those bearing a substitute candidate's name shall be counted in his favor; that the votes for the substitute and the substituted candidates cannot be consolidated and considered as one and the same; hence, the votes cast for Pedro Alfonso cannot be considered as votes for respondent Irma Alfonso; consequently, the votes for Pedro Alfonso should be deemed as stray votes.
Petitioner further manifests that while he has filed a pre-proclamation case with the COMELEC, he claims that the same is not an adequate remedy to enjoin respondent board from proclaiming Irma Alfonso, hence, the necessity of filing the present petition.
The main question, therefore, raised by petitioner is whether it was lawful for the City Board of Canvassers for the City of Manila to add the votes garnered by deceased Pedro Alfonso to those of his daughter, Irma Alfonso, the result of which make Irma Alfonso one of the winning candidates for councilors of the First District of Manila.
We are constrained not to give due course to the petition. HSCATc
One of the requirements for a special civil action of certiorari or prohibition to prosper is that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the present case, petitioner seeks to enjoin the City Board of Canvassers for the City of Manila from proclaiming private respondent Irma Alfonso as one of the elected councilors for the First District of Manila, on the ground that the canvass of votes for private respondent was not made in accordance with the election laws. Petitioner claims that he filed the instant petition because he believes that the pre-proclamation case which he earlier filed and is now pending with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC, for brevity) would not give him an adequate remedy in enjoining the City Board of Canvassers. However, the records of this case show that petitioner failed to sufficiently show that he would not get plain, speedy and adequate remedy from the COMELEC with which he admittedly filed his pre-proclamation case.
Besides, it is important to mention that Section 2 (2), Article IX of the Constitution provides that the COMELEC shall "exercise original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials." In consonance with the aforecited constitutional provision, Section 242 of the Election Code states that the COMELEC has the exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies.
We thus hold that petitioner failed to show compelling reason why this Court should interfere at this point with the COMELEC's, exercise of its original jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases particularly those involving city officials like the one at bar. Further, there being no decision or order as yet rendered by the COMELEC in the said pre-proclamation case, the instant petition is even premature.
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to be unsuccessful in his pre-proclamation petition before the COMELEC and would thus be compelled to file an election contest against the herein private respondent, it is worthy to note that as to the election of city officials, the Omnibus Election Code vests upon the COMELEC the jurisdiction over election protests (Section 249 thereof) and petitions for quo warranto (Section 253) involving city officials, this being in conformity with the aforecited constitutional provision. Hence, in the present case, it is from the COMELEC in the first instance where the appropriate relief can be obtained, be it a pre-proclamation case, an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, as the case maybe.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DISMISSED."
Nocon, J., is on leave.
Very truly yours,
DANIEL T. MARTINEZClerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNOAssistant Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1/ SEC. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. — If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of the day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.