GR 125752; (December, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125752 December 22, 1997
IRENEO A. MANAHAN, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE ARTURO M. BERNARDO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 36, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, and ABUNDIA L. GARCIA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ireneo A. Manahan and private respondent Abundia L. Garcia were candidates for mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija in the May 8, 1995 elections. Petitioner was proclaimed winner on May 11, 1995. On that same day, before the proclamation, private respondent filed a petition (SPA No. 95-180) with the COMELEC to suspend the canvass due to alleged irregularities. She subsequently filed two more petitions with the COMELEC: one on May 12, 1995 (SPC No. 95-058) to declare the proclamation null and void, and another on May 16, 1995 (SPC No. 95-089), an appeal praying for the exclusion of election returns from 18 precincts and to annul the proclamation. The COMELEC dismissed all three petitions, ruling the grounds raised were proper for an election protest. On June 5, 1995, private respondent filed an Election Protest (Election Protest No. 95-04) before the Regional Trial Court, praying for a recount of ballots in specified precincts and to declare her the duly elected mayor. Petitioner filed motions to dismiss, arguing the protest was filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period and that private respondent was not entitled to a judicial recount. The respondent judge denied the motions and ordered a recount. Petitioner challenged these orders.
ISSUE
1. Whether the election protest was filed within the 10-day reglementary period under Section 251 of the Omnibus Election Code.
2. Whether private respondent is entitled to a judicial recount of the votes.
RULING
1. Yes, the election protest was filed on time. Under Section 248 of the Omnibus Election Code, the filing of a petition with the COMELEC to annul or suspend the proclamation of a candidate suspends the running of the period to file an election protest. Private respondent filed three such petitions with the COMELEC (on May 11, May 12, and May 16, 1995). The ten-day period to file an election protest was therefore tolled. The COMELEC resolutions dismissing these petitions were issued on May 24, May 26, and June 29, 1995. Private respondent received the May 24 resolution only on May 30, 1995. Her filing of the election protest on June 5, 1995, was within the suspended prescriptive period.
2. Yes, private respondent is entitled to a judicial recount. Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that where allegations in a protest warrant, or whenever the interests of justice so require, the court shall order the ballot boxes brought before it and the ballots examined and votes recounted. The protest alleged specific anomalies requiring examination of ballots, such as switching/stuffing of ballot boxes, misappreciation of ballots, and erroneous vote computation. No further proof beyond these allegations is required for the court to order a recount. To require such proof would defeat the protest. The respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in ordering the recount.
The petition was DISMISSED.