Digest: Laurena, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (526 SCRA 230, 2007)

Facts: Domiciano R. Laurena, Jr. and Nestor L. Alvarez were candidates for mayor. In the canvass of votes, Laurena obtained 13,321 votes while Alvarez garnered 16,855 votes. With the 3,534 votes difference, Alvarez was proclaimed mayor. Laurena, claiming that massive electoral fraud and irregularities attended Alvarez's victory, filed an election protest impugning the results of the elections in all 175 precincts.

Second Division denied protestee's call for the dismissal of the case. It recognized that ballot revision is the most expeditious and the best means to determine the truth or falsity of protestant's allegations.

After the revision was completed, the physical count of votes showed Alvarez garnering a total of 16,539 votes and Laurena getting 12,785 votes, or a difference of 3,754. During the regular canvass, Alvarez garnered 16,855 while Laurena obtained 13,321, or a difference of 3,534 votes.

With the admission of the parties' respective formal offer of evidence and the submission of their memoranda, the Second Division issued the assailed Resolution dismissing the protest. Affirmed

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, IN PROMULGATING THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 (BY THE COMELEC SECOND DIVISION) AND AUGUST 22, 2006 (BY THE COMELEC EN BANC)

Ruling: The only question that may be raised in a petition for certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the COMELEC is whether or not COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough for it must show that it was exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or hostility. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion or any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law, the factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions rendered by COMELEC on matters falling within its competence shall not be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The appreciation of contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC. The COMELEC being a specialized agency, is tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. It is vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials; as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Votes cannot be nullified on the mere sweeping allegations that fraud and irregularity attended the election. The will of the voters is embodied in the ballots, and to ascertain and carry out such will, the ballots much be read and appreciated according to the rule that every ballot is presumed valid unless there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. Ample and credible evidence is necessary to prove such claim.