G.R. NO. 168411 - BIENVENIDO A. CERBO, JR., ANGELO O. MONTILLA, AND GERONIMO P. ARZAGON, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SUHARTO T. MANGUDADATU, DATU PAX S. MANGUDADATU AND DONATO A. LIGO.

Ruling

accordingly set aside its order suspending the effects of his proclamation. By Resolution [10] dated August 16, 2004, the COMELEC First Division dismissed petitioners petition for correction of manifest errors, holding as follows: As shown in the records and as admitted by the petitioners themselves, on May 14, 2004, they filed a written petition to exclude the COC from Palimbang. On May 15, 2004, the respondent PBOC denied the petition and included the same in the provincial canvass. While the petitioners manifested their intent to appeal, no appeal was actually made and perfected. Because of this failure to appeal, the ruling of the board including the COC of Palimbang in the provincial canvass has become final. x x x x On the issue of correction of manifest error in the COC and SOV of Palimbang, the same cannot prosper. First, the errors to be corrected should pertain to tabulations of the entries. The cited errors by the petitioners were not relative to the tabulation but to the disparity between the number of precincts canvassed for the national and local positions; and the difference between the sequence of precincts listed in the local SOV and the national SOV. Second, in the alleged errors of the entries in the election returns and the SOV by Precincts, the petitioners also questioned the integrity of the election returns, thereby, putting doubt whether there were indeed errors in said documents. Third, the petition for correction of manifest error was already denied by the respondent board. The proper procedure under Section 7, Rule 27 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure should be to appeal said ruling. However, the petitioners failed to do so . The ruling, therefore, has already attained finality. x x x x As to the non-inclusion of the Lutayan COC in the petition [filed before the COMELEC], petitioners argued that it was mere oversight on the part of the petitioners. They asserted, moreover, that in the exercise of the broad and plenary powers of the Commission, the latter can take cognizance of the same. We are not convinced. Granting that the [non-]inclusion of the Lutayan COC was just a mere oversight, still the Commission cannot pass upon the authenticity and genuineness of the same in the instant case. Per the aforementioned procedures, such ground should be raised before the appropriate board of canvassers. The Commission has only an appellate jurisdiction over the same. Even if this case be considered as one for correction of manifest error of the COC/SOV of Lutayan the same must also fail. The petitioners failed to specify the errors that are supposed to be manifest and are to be corrected. What they alleged in their memorandum are grounds proper for election protest or exclusion of the COC and SOV, such as statistical improbability, abnormal turn out of voters, and other defects and abnormalities. Furthermore, with respect to the herein case filed against respondent Datu Pax Mangudadatu, the same is deemed to have been abandoned