Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL MILLA v. REGINA BALMORES-LAXA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167224 2007-09-21	NOLITO L. MAÑAGO v. COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, in Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections,[15] the Court held that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[16] It is highly imperative that the will of the electorate be determined, and technicalities dispensed with if it hampers such determination. A stubborn subservience to technicalities that would result in upholding a patently void proclamation will never be allowed by this Court.[17]
	GR NO. 167137 2007-03-14	ANTENOR A. ARBONIDA QUISUMBING, J.
In Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[14] where a similar factual background existed, this Court stated that the statement of votes forms the basis of the certificate of canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.[15] If a candidate's proclamation is based on a statement of votes which contains erroneous entries, it is a nullity. As the COMELEC correctly stated,[16] where a proclamation is null and void, it is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to annul the proclamation.[17] Moreover, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that the COMELEC has the power to suspend its own rules so as not to defeat the will of the electorate.[18] In Milla, the Court allowed the filing of a petition one month after the proclamation of the petitioner therein on the ground that an invalid proclamation is no proclamation. It pronounced thus:...While our election laws are silent when such and similar petitions may be filed directly with the COMELEC, the above-quoted Section 5, Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure sets a prescriptive period of five (5) days following the date of proclamation. The COMELEC, however, could suspend its own Rules of Procedure so as not to defeat the will of the electorate. For adherence to technicality that would put a stamp on a palpably void proclamation, with the inevitable result of frustrating the people's will, cannot be countenanced.[19]
	GR NO. 167101 2006-01-31	MANUEL A. ALEJANDRO v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Consequently, by margin of 72 votes, private respondent indisputably won the challenged seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the sixth district of Pangasinan. Petitioner's proclamation and assumption into public office was therefore flawed from the beginning, the same having been based on a faulty tabulation. Hence, respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the illegal proclamation. [19] In Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, [20] we sustained the power of the COMELEC to annul the proclamation, due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the statement of votes, of a winning candidate for municipal councilor who had taken his oath and assumed office as such. We ruled therein that:The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.
	GR No. 155717 2003-10-23	ALBERTO JARAMILLA v. COMELEC AZCUNA, J.
As stated in the provision, and in line with the Court's recent pronouncement in Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[8]election cases including pre-proclamation controversies should first be heard and decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the commission en banc if a motion for reconsideration of the division is filed.