PARILLA, MAY ANN C.

LLB 2-1

ELECTION LAW
MONDAYS/CW8

G.R. No. 151944

January 20, 2004
ENGR. ERNESTO T. MATUGAS VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Facts:
Ernesto T. Matugas, candidate for Governor of Surigao del Norte, filed with the COMELEC
a petition to disqualify his contender, Robert Lyndon S. Barbers. He alleged that Barbers
was not a Filipino citizen. Matugas presented the photocopy of the following: (1) letterrequest by a confidential agent of the Bureau of Immigration with a certification issued
by the said agency attesting that Barbers was naturalized on October 11, 1991 in Los
Angeles, CA; (2) a certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID) containing his travel records and entries stating Barbers citizenship; and, (3) a
certification of no pending or granted application for repatriation. Meantime, Barbers
won and was proclaimed governor. The Second Division of the COMELEC and COMELEC
en Banc concurred to dismiss Matugas Petition to Disqualify for lack of merit, since there
was no other independent evidence to justify his claim. Thus, prompting a petition for
certiorari claiming COMELEC has committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion committed by COMELEC.
Held:
No. Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires that if the public document or the
public record is not kept in the Philippines, its official publication or its copy be duly
attested by the officer in charge of the custody thereof. The basic in the law of evidence,
provides that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. This burden was not
met. In an administrative case like this petition, quantum of proof required is substantial
evidence. All of the documents submitted to COMELEC were photocopied and were not
certified photocopy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Although Matugas
subsequently filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Admit Original Documents in
the Supreme Court the same cannot be entertained since this is beyond the courts
certiorari powers. For if it will admit such would be tantamount to holding a new
investigation and substituting the discretion of COMELEC. It would be absurd to hold
COMELEC guilty of grave abuse of discretion for not considering evidence not presented
before it. The patent unfairness of Matugas plea, prejudicing as it would public and
private respondents alike, militates against the admission and consideration of the
subject documents. Hence, petition was denied.