GR L 28476; (January, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968
ALEJANDRO REYES, petitioner, vs. ANATALIO REYES and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alejandro Reyes was the official Nacionalista Party candidate for mayor of Magallanes, Cavite, in the November 14, 1967 election. Respondent Anatalio Reyes was the Liberal Party candidate. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Anatalio Reyes as mayor-elect on November 21, 1967. On December 2, 1967, Alejandro Reyes filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to annul the proclamation, alleging the canvass was incomplete due to pending questions on the returns from Precincts Nos. 7 and 12. On December 4, 1967, Alejandro Reyes filed an election protest with the Court of First Instance of Cavite. On December 6, 1967, COMELEC issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Anatalio Reyes. However, COMELEC was unaware of the pending election protest at the time. Anatalio Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration. On December 29, 1967, COMELEC granted the motion, reinstating the proclamation, on the ground that an election protest was already pending in court, invoking the doctrine from Acain v. Board of Canvassers. Alejandro Reyes then filed this petition for certiorari to nullify the December 29 COMELEC resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering and setting aside its annulment of a proclamation due to the subsequent filing (or prior existence) of an election protest in the Court of First Instance.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; its action was in accordance with controlling legal principle. Following the doctrine in Acain v. Board of Canvassers, once an election protest is filed with the Court of First Instance, that court acquires exclusive authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the proclaimed candidate and the validity of the proclamation. The COMELEC, upon learning of the pending election protest, correctly reconsidered its earlier annulment to avoid encroaching upon the court’s jurisdiction and to prevent confusion and conflict in authority. The reinstatement of the proclamation was proper, leaving all questions involved in the election to be disposed of by the Court of First Instance in the pending election protest.