G.R. No. 122872 - PENDATUN SALIH, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OMARHASSIM ABDULMUNAP AND FAWSI ALONZO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly proclaim the winning candidate for Mayor of the said municipality. Threatened to be unseated as Mayor of Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi on the strength of the aforementioned decision of the COMELEC en banc, petitioner has come to us via this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking the nullification of the said en banc decision [1] and a declaration of his status as the duly elected Mayor of Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi. The antecedents of this case are not in dispute. The present controversy traces its origin to three appealed cases, docketed as SPC No. 95-234, SPC No. 95-237 and UND No. 95-232, the subject of all of which was the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi to include five (5) contested election returns from five precincts, namely, Nos. 10, 10-A, 16, 21 and 21-A. These three cases were resolved by the Second Division of the COMELEC in its Resolution dated June 28, 1995. Said Second Division outrightly dismissed UND No. 95-232 for failure to pay docket fees while disposing of the two other appealed cases in this wise: x x x [T]he Commission (Second Division) x x x shall limit itself to the resolution of the five (5) determined contested election returns coming from Precincts No. 10, 10-A, 16, 21 and 21-A. The Commission (Second Division), also notes that one of the above appeals, namely, that raised by Petitioner/Appellant Omarhassim Abdulmunap, has been docketed as UND No. 95-232. There is no showing that the petitioner therein remitted the required docket/filing fees for initiating the appeal. This Division is therefore constrained to order the outright dismissal of the said UND No. 95-232 by reason of failure to pay the mandated filing fees under Sec. 2(a) and (b) of Rule 40, Comelec Rules of Procedure. The Commission (Second Division) will proceed to resolve the two (2) remaining validly elevated appeals in SPC No. 95-234 and SPC No. 95-237. SPC No. 95-234 This appeal refers to the contested election returns from Precinct 21 and 21A of Tandubas. In Precinct 21 (involving Election Return No. 120612), the Ruling on appeal is one which rejected the objection NOT to canvass the election return from this precinct. The ruling states: `Petitioner failed to indicate either to include or exclude the election return for canvassing, and that there is lack of factual basis. The objection itself does not establish whether it seeks to include or exclude the return of Precinct No. 21. The document appears to be an `Opposition to the Objection, and one cannot ascertain the objectors intention. By reason of the vagueness of the document the Canvass Board was certainly correct when it ruled that there was failure `to indicate . . . either to include or exclude the election returns and therefore the ruling to canvass the return should be sustained. x x x In regard to Precinct No. 21-A (Election Return No. 120614), the Municipal Canvass Board also ruled to canvass the results of the same for the reason that there appears