Assailed in this special civil action for certiorari are the En Banc Resolution of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC"), dated December 1, 1998,1 [Penned by Commissioner Julio F. Desamito.] and the Resolution of the COMELEC First Division, dated July 2, 1998,2 [Penned by Commissioner Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores.] in SPA No. 98-361, which dismissed, for lack of merit, the petition for disqualification filed against herein private respondent, the incumbent mayor of Mandaluyong City.

In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Ernesto Domingo, Jr. and private respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. were both mayoralty candidates of Mandaluyong City. After private respondent’s proclamation on May 17, 1998, petitioner filed the instant petition for disqualification, on the ground that, during the campaign period, private respondent "prodded" his father, then incumbent Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr., to give "substantial allowances" to public school teachers appointed as chairpersons and members of the Boards of Election Inspectors ("BEIs") for Mandaluyong City. Suprema

Petitioner’s allegations obtain from an incident on April 14, 1998, wherein, in a "Pasyal-Aral" outing for Mandaluyong City public school teachers in Sariaya, Quezon, then Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr. announced that the teachers appointed to the BEIs will each be given a hazard pay of P1,000.00 and food allowance of P500.00, in addition to the allowance of P1,500.00.3 [Petition, 12; Rollo, 15.] In the petition for disqualification filed before the COMELEC First Division, petitioner charged that private respondent’s influence over his father on this matter was evident from the following declaration of father Abalos, Sr.:

As alleged by petitioner, the foregoing statement was revealing of how private respondent "prodded" his father, then Mayor Abalos, Sr., to award "substantial allowances" to the public school teachers who will assume seats in the BEIs in the May 11, 1998 elections, as to influence them into voting for him and ensuring his victory. Scncm

Mayor Abalos, Sr.’s speech, as well, as other activities in the aforesaid "Pasyal-Aral" outing, were recorded on videotape per instructions of Mr. Perfecto Doroja, an "associate" of petitioner.5 [Rollo, 115.] In addition to the videotape, petitioner also submitted photographs of a streamer, hung at the entrance of the Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, Sariaya, Quezon, declaring Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. as co-sponsor of the "Pasyal-Aral",6 [Annex "D" of Petition for Disqualification; Rollo, 73.] as well as affidavits of three public school teachers who participated in the said activity.7 [See Joint Affidavit of Anita Mallillin and Estela Posadas, Affidavit of Carlito F. Faminial, Annexes "G" and "H", Petition for Disqualification; Rollo, 74-75.]

Petitioner alleges that private respondent’s act of "prodding" his father, then incumbent mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr., to give "substantial allowances" to the Mandaluyong City public school teachers constitutes a violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, the pertinent provisions of which read:

Sec. 68. Disqualifications. – Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; xxx shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. xxx Scsdaad

In dismissing the petition for disqualification for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, the COMELEC First Division admonished petitioner and his counsel for attempting to mislead the COMELEC by making false and untruthful statements8 [Portions of the Resolution of the COMELEC, First Division, which make reference to the said misleading statements read:

We admonish petitioner and his counsel for trying to MISLEAD this Commission (First Division) by making several false and untruthful statements in the petition designed to influence Us into favoring their cause. These actuations of petitioner and his counsel shall be noted by this Commission and any other similar actuations committed by them shall be dealt with more severely by this Commission.] in his petition. On reconsideration, the COMELEC, En Banc, affirmed the findings and conclusions of its First Division.

Before us, petitioner assails the Resolutions of public respondent COMELEC for being violative of his right to due process, and thus, issued with grave abuse of discretion. It is petitioner’s argument that the dismissal of his petition for disqualification on the ground of insufficiency of evidence was unfounded, considering that no hearing on the merits was conducted by public respondent on the matter. Sdaad

Petitioner next contends that grave abuse of discretion was likewise attendant in public respondent’s act of dismissing the petition for disqualification for insufficiency of evidence, despite the "overwhelming" pieces of evidence of petitioner, consisting of the video cassette, pictures and affidavits, which were "not denied" by private respondent.9 [Petition, 24-25; Rollo, 27-28.] Petitioner further decries the fact that private respondent presented "no evidence" to substantiate his defense, while all the pieces of evidence that he submitted in his petition for disqualification were strong enough to prove violation by private respondent of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.10 [Ibid., 26; Ibid., 29.]

Before touching on the merits, we shall first resolve the procedural matters raised by private respondent, namely, forum-shopping and failure to file this petition on time.

It is not disputed that, in addition to the petition for disqualification, petitioner also filed a criminal complaint11 [Docketed as E.O. No. 98-110. Filed with the COMELEC Law Department, and naming Benjamin Abalos, Jr., Benjamin Abalos, Sr., Eden Diaz, Romeo Zapanta and Alfredo de Vera as defendants.] and an election protest ex abundante cautelam12 [Election Protest Case No. 98-34.] with public respondent COMELEC. Private respondent contends that, inasmuch as the petition for disqualification and the complaint for election offense involve the same issues and charges, i.e., vote-buying, exerting undue influence on BEI members, petitioner should be held liable for forum-shopping. Ncmmis

We rule to the contrary. Forum-shopping exists when the petitioner files multiple petitions or complaints involving the same issues in two or more tribunals or agencies.13 [Sec. 5, Rule 7, Revised Rules of Court; Administrative Circular No. 04-94.] The issues in the two cases are different. The complaint for election offense is a criminal case which involves the ascertainment of the guilt or innocence of the accused candidate and, like any other criminal case, requires a conviction on proof beyond reasonable doubt.14 [Sunga vs. Commission on Elections, 288 SCRA 76.] A petition for disqualification, meanwhile, requires merely the determination of whether the respondent committed acts as to merit his disqualification from office, and is done through an administrative proceeding which is summary in character and requires only a clear preponderance of evidence.15 [Id.]

Next, petitioner admits receiving a copy of the assailed COMELEC First Division Resolution on July 13, 1998. He also admits filing a motion for reconsideration of the said COMELEC First Division Resolution on July 20, 1998. A copy of the assailed COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated December 1, 1998 was received by petitioner on December 4, 1998. Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitions for certiorari from orders or rulings of the COMELEC. Manikan

Section 4 of Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure likewise provides:

Inasmuch as the filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts the 30-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari with this Court, petitioner has effectively consumed seven days of the abovestated 30-day period when he filed his motion for reconsideration. Thus, as correctly pointed out by private respondent, when petitioner received a copy of the assailed COMELEC En Banc Resolution, he only had 23 days from December 4, 1998, the date when he received the COMELEC En Banc Resolution, or until December 27, 1998,16 [Strictly speaking, December 28, 1998, since December 27, 1998 is a Sunday.] to file the instant petition for certiorari. This petition was filed on January 4, 1999.

In any event, whether the petition was filed on time or not, an examination of the records leaves us satisfied that public respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for disqualification. Nexold

First, on the issue of due process, we find no violation thereof when public respondent COMELEC decided to dismiss the petition for disqualification without hearing. Well-established is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.17 [National Semiconductor (HK) Distribution, Ltd. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 291 SCRA 348; Navarro III vs. Damaso, 246 SCRA 260.] In Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan,18 [166 SCRA 316.] cited in the recent case of Bautista vs. COMELEC,19 [G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998.] we held that the right to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court. A party may also be heard through his pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard is accorded, either through oral arguments or pleadings, there is no denial of procedural due process.

Furthermore, the filing by petitioner of a motion for reconsideration accorded him ample opportunity to dispute the findings of the COMELEC First Division, so that he was as fully heard as he might have been had oral arguments actually taken place. Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard in his motion for reconsideration.20 [Salonga vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534; Rodriguez vs. Project 6 Market Service, 247 SCRA 528.]

Next, petitioner re-asserts before us the sufficiency of his evidence to prove that private respondent influenced the Mandaluyong City public school teachers, through his father, Abalos, Sr., in the performance of their functions as members of the BEIs. Maniks

Petitioner’s evidence fails to persuade. First, the affidavits of the three teachers who participated in the controversial "Pasyal-Aral" do not contain anything but the following bare declarations: (1) that they heard Abalos, Sr. promise that he will give hazard pay of P1,000.00 and food allowance of P500.00, in addition to the regular living allowance of P1,500.00, and (2) that, before the May 11, 1998 elections they each received P1,500.00, or half of the total allowances promised by Abalos, Sr. in his speech. Nothing in these affidavits suggests, let alone sets out, knowledge on any degree of participation of private respondent in the grant of these allowances. The name of private respondent was not even mentioned or alluded to by any of the three affiants.

Petitioner also submitted photographs taken of the streamer at the entrance of the Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, welcoming the participants to the "Pasyal-Aral" and declaring the Mandaluyong City School Board and then mayor Abalos, Sr. as co-sponsors of the affair. Since by law, the mayor is a co-chairman of the City School Board,21 [Sec. 98, Local Government Code.] we find nothing unusual in his having co-sponsored the said event. We fail to see the connection between these pictures and the alleged influence wielded by private respondent on the public school teachers of Mandaluyong City.

Yet it is upon the videotape recordings that petitioner lays much reliance on, in proving his case for disqualification. The recordings are supposed to document how former mayor Abalos, Sr. announced that his son, private respondent herein, prodded his father to release substantial allowances to teachers who will act as members of the BEIs. As found by the COMELEC First Division, the name uttered in the announcement was not "Benhur", private respondent’s nickname and what petitioner alleged was uttered, but "Lito Motivo", a name which truly sounded unlike "Benhur".22 [Resolution of COMELEC First Division, 4; Rollo, 42.] Also, when the COMELEC, through its First Division, viewed the videotape submitted by petitioner, "the speech of Mayor Abalos, Sr. was cut and so (they) also did not see and hear that part of Mayor Abalos, Sr.’s speech allegedly uttered by him."23 [Ibid.] Miso

In the Petition, petitioner’s counsel admitted that the assailed quotation in the petition for disqualification was based on an "erroneous transcript" of the speech which was prepared by somebody else, and which he in turn failed to verify for errors. However, he denies having intended to mislead the COMELEC with the inclusion of this statement, but instead submits that the word "Benhur" was "derived" from the succeeding pronouncement of Abalos, Sr., "not because he is my son", which may in turn be inferred to refer to private respondent, who was a mayoralty candidate at the time.24 [Petition, 28; Rollo, 31.]

We find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s finding that Abalos, Sr.’s controversial statement, effectively reduced to this:

was seriously insufficient and vague to prove violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The burden of proving that private respondent indirectly influenced the public school teachers of Mandaluyong City, through his father, Abalos, Sr., was a burden that petitioner failed to meet.

Neither is this burden overcome by the argument that private respondent, for himself, had "no evidence" to rebut petitioner’s allegations, since the burden of proving factual claims rests on the party raising them.25 [Sec. 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court.] Besides, it is not true that private respondent gave only denials and did not present any evidence to his defense, or to offer an explanation for his father’s actions, which were assailed as having been influenced by him. Private respondent presented in evidence a certified true copy of Joint Circular No. 1, series of 1998,26 [Annex "J" of Petition; Rollo, 138; Annex "H" of Comment to Petition; Rollo, 187.] issued by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, Department of Budget and Management and Department of Interior and Local Government, which authorized the payment of allowances of public school teachers chargeable to local government funds.27 [The Joint Circular was directed to "Governors, Mayors, Superintendents, and District Supervisors of Schools, Members of the Local School Boards and Other National and Local Government Officials Concerned" and authorized the "payment of existing allowances of teachers granted by local government units (LGUs) chargeable against the Special Education Funds (SEFs) as of 31 December 1997, provided that any additional allowances that may be granted to teachers by LGUs shall be charged to the general funds of LGUs, subject to existing budgeting rules and regulations."] The Joint Circular provided the basis for private respondent’s argument that the disbursement of funds by then mayor Abalos, Sr. was valid as having been made pursuant to administrative circular, and was not an unlawful attempt made in conspiracy with private respondent to secure the latter’s victory in the elections. Jospped

In fine, we find no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s decision to dismiss the petition for disqualification. The conclusion that petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to support the charge of violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code was arrived at only after a careful scrutiny of the evidence at hand, especially of the videotapes of petitioner. This is clearly evident from the discussion of the COMELEC First Division, in the Resolution dated July 2, 1998, which quoted extensively from the pleadings and evidence of petitioners, and provided adequate explanation for why it considered petitioner’s evidence insufficient and unconvincing.

Clearly, where there is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or error of law in the questioned Resolutions, the Court may not review the factual findings of COMELEC, nor substitute its own findings on the sufficiency of evidence.28 [Nolasco vs. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762; Lozano vs. Yorac, 203 SCRA 256; Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. Garcia, 199 SCRA 278.]

Finally, the foregoing conclusion is without prejudice to the election protest and election offense cases involving the same parties pending with public respondent COMELEC.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed COMELEC Resolutions dated July 2, 1998 and December 1, 1998, dismissing the petition for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, and affirming the proclamation of private respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. as duly elected mayor of Mandaluyong City, are hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Panganiban, J. concurs in the result.