G.R. No. 181837 - OMAR M. "SOLITARIO" ALI, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LANAO DEL SUR, AND MAMINTAL A. ADIONG, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this case is hereby DISMISSED for LACK of MERIT . [9] Ali filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-mentioned resolution before the Comelec En Banc . However, in a Resolution dated January 28, 2008, the Comelec En Banc dismissed Ali's motion. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads as follows: WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [10] Hence, this petition before us now where Ali raises the following issues: I. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT DECLARING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 20 (i) OF R.A. 7166 AND SEC. 39 (13) OF COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 7859 BY THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS WHEN IT PROCLAIMED RESPONDENT MAMINTAL ADIONG JR. AS THE ALLEGED WINNER OF THE GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION IN LANAO DEL SUR; AND IN NOT NULLIFYING THE SAID PROCLAMATION IN SPITE [OF] THE PENDENCY OF A CONSOLIDATED APPEAL AND MOTION TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERROR BEFORE THE COMMISSION SECOND DIVISION, AND THE ABSENCE OF AN AUTHORITY TO PROCLAIM FROM THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THE PROCLAMATION WAS MADE. II. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY VALID PRE-PROCLAMATION ISSUE IN SPITE [OF] AMPLE PROOFS PRESENTED THAT THE ELECTION RETURNS WERE IN FACT ERRONEOUS AND MANUFACTURED AND THE CERTIFICATES OF CANVASS AND STATEMENTS OF VOTES WERE BASED ON THESE ERRONEOUS AND MANUFACTURED ELECTION RETURNS. [11] Thus, in our view, the main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing Ali's consolidated appeal, Motion to Annul Proclamation and Motion to Correct Manifest Errors. Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or personal hostility. The abuse must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. [12] Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of power or discretion on the part of the Comelec, this Court may not validly conduct an incursion and meddle with the affairs exclusively within the province of the Comelec - a body accorded independence by no less than the fundamental law. [13] A review of the ruling of the Comelec Second Division shows that, in resolving the case, the Comelec examined the records and pertinent election documents as well as assessed the evidence submitted by the parties. The Comelec meticulously and succinctly discussed the issues pertaining to the certificates of canvass coming from the Municipalities of Picong, Ganassi,