G.R. No.

80868 March 3, 1988

JUDGE RODOLFO T. ALLARDE,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LAS PIAS MUNTINLUPA AND
DR. FILEMON C. AGUILAR.

In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of
preliminary injunction and/or restraining order, petitioner Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde, one of the
ten (10) congressional candidates for the district of Las Pias Muntinlupa in the May 11, 1987
elections, seeks to annul and set aside the order of the Comelec (Second Division), dated
July 13, 1987 in the consolidated cases docketed as SPC 87-197 (Lucina Teodoro vs. Board of
Canvassers of Las Pias Muntinlupa District) and SPC 87-201 (In re: Petition to Suspend and
Annul the Canvassing of Votes and the Result of the Canvass in Muntinlupa-Las Pias
Congressional District, Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde, Petitioner), and the decision of the Comelec
En Banc dated December 7,1987, in SPC No. 87-201 dismissing the petitions and the motions
filed by Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde.

Records show that on May 14, 1987, petitioner Allarde filed with the Comelec a petition
docketed as SPC No. 87-201, subsequently amended on June 5,1987, praying for the
suspension of the canvassing of votes and the annulment of the results of the canvass in the
Las Pias Muntinlupa congressional district due to alleged (1) massive fraud as he was never
credited with any vote in the entire district except in less than a dozen precincts in Las Pias
and a few precincts in Muntinlupa where he got one (1) vote each resulting in his having only
a few votes since the votes intended for him were credited to other candidates and/or
deliberately omitted; (2) falsified, incomplete election returns, or returns contained material
defects, or appeared to be tampered with or are not authentic; (3) the zero votes he received
in more than 907 precincts in Las Pias and Muntinlupa is not only statistically improbable
but inherently impossible because of his stature as a judge who is loved by the people of the
said municipalities; (4) irregularities in the conduct of canvassing; and (5) massive vote-
buying.

Likewise on May 14,1987, another candidate Lucina Teodoro filed with the Comelec a petition
docketed as SPC 87-197 to suspend the canvass in Las Pias Muntinlupa congressional
district, to declare the creation of the sub-board of canvassers illegal, to exclude the
contested returns from the canvass, and to re-canvass the returns previously canvassed by
the sub-board of canvassers.

On a motion to dismiss filed by intervenor Filemon C. Aguilar, another congressional

candidate, the Comelec (second Division), after a joint trial of the two (2) petitions upon
agreement of Teodoro and Allarde in the hearing of May 19, 1987, issued the questioned
order on July 13, 1987 dismissing the petitions in SPC Nos. 87-197 and 87-201 and lifted the
restraining order issued by the Comelec for the suspension of the proclamation of the
winning candidate and ordered the Board of Canvassers to reconvene for the purpose of
proclaiming the winning candidate in the Congressional District of Las Pias Muntinlupa.
On July 20, 1987, petitioner Allarde filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the
order of the Comelec (Second Division), dated July 7, 1987, stating therein, that the dismissal
of his petitions in SPC No. 87-201 together with that of Teodoro in SPC No. 87-197 violated Es
right to due process of law for lack of notice and hearing considering that the two (2) cases
were not consolidated in accordance with Rule 31, Section 2 of the Rules of Court and that he
was never an intervenor in SPC No. 87-201. The motion was heard by the Comelec (En Banc)
on July 28, 1987. Petitioner Allarde then moved on September 8, 1987 and October 28, 1987
for an early resolution of his motion for reconsideration and clarification.

On December 7, 1987, the Comelec (En Banc) promulgated the questioned decision which
dismissed Allarde's petition and all his motions in SPC No. 87- 201.

Hence, this petition.

After considering the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition as well as the
comment thereon by respondents, the Court finds that respondent Commission on Elections
did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order of July 13, 1987
and the en banc decision of December 7, 1987. Records of the case reveal that the procedural
objections of petitioner in support of his allegation of denial of his right to due process of law
were painstakingly discussed by the Comelec in the questioned decision of December 7,
1987.

It is apparent from the records of the case that the other grounds relied upon by petitioner in
seeking relief from the Comelec, i.e. massive fraud resulting in his having been credited zero
votes when the votes intended for him were credited to other candidates and/or deliberately
omitted; massive vote-buying, are proper grounds for an election protest which fall within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal and are not the proper issues that may
be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election
Code.

While it is true that the other grounds cited by petitioner, i.e. election returns which were
falsified, incomplete, or contain material defects, or appear to be tampered with or are not
authentic copies, are proper grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy under Section 243
of the Omnibus Election Code,

the reliefs sought cannot nevertheless be granted considering that during the canvassing of
the election returns, petitioner admittedly did not raise his objections against the election
returns before the Board of Canvassers of Las Pias Muntinlupa District which is an
essential mandatory pre-requisite under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code
(Espaldon vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 78987, August 25,1987). The procedural short-cut
undertaken by petitioner in elevating to the Comelec his belated objections to the election
returns is not sanctioned by Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Besides, as reaffirmed by the Court in Robles vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 79847, December
17,1987, "the Court has consistently maintained that election returns of certain precincts may
only be excluded and set aside at the cost of disenfranchising the voters only on the clearest
and compelling showing of their nullity." Petitioner failed to establish such essential requisite
in this petition.

Furthermore, considering that private respondent Filemon C. Aguilar had already been
proclaimed the winner in the May 11, 1987 election for congressman in the District of Las
Pias Muntinlupa and had taken his oath and assumed the office in question on July 27, 1987
so that a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable (Syjuco vs. Comelec, G.R. No.
78928, July 16, 1987; Espaldon vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 78987, August 25,1987; Alberto vs.
Comelec, G.R. No. 79278, August 27,1987; Andanar vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 79203, September
1, 1987); and considering that the grounds relied upon by petitioner are proper grounds for a
timely election protest, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit, without
prejudice to petitioner's filing the appropriate electoral protest before the House Electoral
Tribunal.

allarde vs. comelec

facts:

in this case judge allarde was questioning the decision of the comelec en banc in
dismissing his petition of suspending and anulling the results of the canvass for the
congressional elections of las pinas.

it has to be noted that when he filed his petiton with the comele, there was initially a
restraining order for the canvassing .

when the petition of allarde was dismissed, the restraining order was lifted and soon
thereafter, aguilar was proclaimed winner and took his oath as one of the
congressmen of las pinas.

allarde now questions the dismissal of the comelec enbanc

sc ruling:

since aguilar already been proclaimed congressman and took his oath, he should now
file a protest before the house electoral tribunal. hindi na ito pre proclamation
controversy.

the comelec was correct in dismissing his petiton.

It is apparent from the records of the case that the other grounds relied upon by
petitioner in seeking relief from the Comelec, i.e. massive fraud resulting in his having
been credited zero votes when the votes intended for him were credited to other
candidates and/or deliberately omitted; massive vote-buying, are proper grounds for
 an election protest which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral
Tribunal and are not the proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code.

While it is true that the other grounds cited by petitioner, i.e. election returns which
were falsified, incomplete, or contain material defects, or appear to be tampered with
or are not authentic copies, are proper grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy
under Section 243 of the Omnibus Election Code, the reliefs sought cannot
nevertheless be granted considering that during the canvassing of the election
returns, petitioner admittedly did not raise his objections against the election returns
before the Board of Canvassers of Las Pias Muntinlupa District which is an essential
mandatory pre-requisite under Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code (Espaldon
vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 78987, August 25,1987).

The procedural short-cut undertaken by petitioner in elevating to the Comelec his

belated objections to the election returns is not sanctioned by Section 245 of the
Omnibus Election Code.