G.R. No.
199149 : January 22, 2013
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and ELMER E. PANOTES,Respondents.
G.R. No. 201350 : January 22, 2013
ELMER E. PANOTES, Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO,Respondents.
PERLAS -BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato (Chato) renewed her bid in the May 10, 2010 elections
as representative of the Second Legislative District of Camarines Norte,
composed of the seven (7) Municipalities of Daet, Vinzons, Basud, Mercedes,
Talisay, San Vicente, and San Lorenzo, with a total of 205 clustered precincts.
She lost to Elmer E. Panotes (Panotes) who was proclaimed the winner on May
12, 2010 having garnered a total of 51,707 votes as against Chato's 47,822
votes, or a plurality of 3,885 votes.
Chato filed an electoral protest before the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) assailing the results in four (4) municipalities, namely: Daet,
Vinzons, Basud and Mercedes. Panotes moved for the suspension of the
proceedings and prayed that a preliminary hearing be set in order to determine
the integrity of the ballots and the ballot boxes used in the elections. In its
resolution, the HRET directed the copying of the picture image files of ballots
relative to the protest. Chato then filed an Urgent Motion to Prohibit the Use by
Protestee of the Decrypted and Copied Ballot Images reiterating the lack of legal
basis for the decryption and copying of ballot images inasmuch as no preliminary
hearing had been conducted showing that the integrity of the ballots and ballot
boxes was not preserved. The HRET denied Chatos motion. HRET declared
that, although the actual ballots used in the May 10, 2010 elections are the best
evidence of the will of the voters, the picture images of the ballots are regarded
as the equivalent of the original ballots. Chato filed a motion for reconsideration
but the HRET denied the same.
Chato then moved for the revision of the ballots in all of the protested clustered
precincts arguing that the results of the revision of twenty-five percent (25%) of
the precincts indicate a reasonable recovery of votes in her favor. She filed a
second motion reiterating her prayer for the continuance of the revision. The
HRET denied the motion.
However, on March 22, 2012, the HRET issued the assailed Resolution No. 12-
079 directing the continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining seventy-
five percent (75%) protested clustered precincts, or a total of 120 precincts.
Panotes moved for reconsideration but the HRET denied the same.
Hence, Panotes filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not HRET gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution No. 12-079?
HELD:
The HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it issued Resolution No. 12-
079.
POLITICAL LAW: HRET as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of its members
It is hornbook principle that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review
decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised only upon showing of
grave abuse of discretion committed by the tribunal; otherwise, the Court shall
not interfere with the electoral tribunals exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction.
Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as the capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment, or the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner, where the
abuse is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty.
To substitute our own judgment to the findings of the HRET will doubtless
constitute an intrusion into its domain and a curtailment of its power to act of its
own accord on its evaluation of the evidentiary weight of testimonies presented
before it.
In the main, Panotes ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET
in ordering the continuation of the revision of ballots in the remaining 75% of the
protested clustered precincts.
The Constitution mandates that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of its members. By employing
the word sole, the Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction of the HRET in the
adjudication of election contests involving its members is intended to be its own
full, complete and unimpaired.
There can be no challenge, therefore, to such exclusive control absent any clear
showing, as in this case, of arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its
power that constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a demonstration of
a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such grave abuse of
discretion that there has to be a remedy therefor.
Petition is DISMISSED.
