Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > December 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28395 December 26, 1967 - LILIA PEÑA, ET AL. v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-28395. December 26, 1967.]

LILIA PEÑA, NENITA TISBE, RODRIGO GELLE, CARLOS LEYNES and ROGELIO MAGSINO, Petitioners, v. HON. DAMASO S. TENGCO, Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Batangas, and WENCESLAO VIVAS, Respondents.

V. Endaye, for Petitioners.

Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

L. Asa for respondent Vivas.


SYLLABUS


1. ELECTION LAW; RETURNS, CORRECTION OF. — Where in a judicial recount (Case No 1888) a discrepancy existed between the actual number of votes obtained by petitioner Magsino, candidate for councilor, and the votes credited to him in the returns, a separate petition for correction (Case No. 1895) signed by all the members of the board of election inspectors alleging that the mistake was due to fatigue on their part, lack of sleep, and physical exhaustion coupled with poor lighting, is in line with Sec. 154 of the Revised Election Code, and the court is justified in ordering such correction from 61 to 69 votes.

2. ID.; ID.; — Where in another separate petition for recount (Case No. 890) filed by herein respondent Vivas asking that correction be accordingly made of his votes on the ground that in the recounting conducted by the court in Case 1888 he obtained 64 votes instead of 60 appearing in the returns, which he made of record although not given consideration, the order of the court in Case 1895 insofar as it directs the board of canvassers to credit Vivas with 64 votes is a grave abuse of discretion, considering that the petition for correction in Case 1895 by the election inspectors specifically mentions only the name of candidate Magsino, and because the court itself did not make any finding in Case 1888 relative to the 64 votes of Vivas which were just made of record by himself.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Candidates, amongst others, for Councilor of Lipa City in the November 14, 1967 elections were petitioner Rogelio Magsino, independent, and respondent Wenceslao Vivas of the Nacionalista Party.

On November 23, 1967, upon the averment that a discrepancy exists in the number of votes obtained by petitioner Magsino in the election returns submitted by the Municipal Treasurer of Lipa City to the board of canvassers, on the one hand, and the official report of Magsino’s watcher duly signed by all the members of the board of inspectors and the election returns furnished the Liberal Party, on the other, Magsino sought a recount of votes in a number of precincts [Election Case 1888, Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch III. On November 24, 1967, respondent judge did the following: He granted a recount of Magsino’s votes solely for precincts 94 and 100; gave orders that the ballot boxes for said precincts be opened in open court; had the votes of Magsino actually counted in his (the judge’s) presence and in the presence of the interested parties; and issued thereafter a written order directing the board of canvassers "to include and admit in their record as basis for their canvass that Petitioner, Rogelio Magsino, obtained from Precinct No. 100, 42 votes and from Precinct No. 94, 69 votes in his favor." Subsequently, however, i.e., on November 27, 1967, respondent judge, taking note of the rule that copies of statements given to the political parties may not serve as basis for recount, motu propio, set aside his order of November 24, 1967.

On November 25, 1967, respondent Wenceslao Vivas likewise petitioned for a recount of the votes he obtained in precinct 94 of Lipa City [Election Case 1890 of the same court]. His ground therefor was that "whereas in the ballots actually read and recorded by petitioner in the course of the recounting conducted by this Court under Election Case No. 1888 on November 24, 1967, he obtained 64 votes in said precinct," the returns submitted by the board of election inspectors to the city board of canvassers showed that he only obtained 60 votes. Respondent judge likewise denied this petition of Vivas.

Meanwhile, on November 30, 1967, all the members of the board of election inspectors (which includes the poll clerk) of said precinct 94 went to court [Election Case 1895, Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch 11] upon a verified petition with a prayer that the erroneous copies of the election returns for the precinct aforesaid be ordered corrected by changing the entry of the votes obtained by petitioner Rogelio Magsino from 61 to 69 votes. They ascribed the error to fatigue, lack of sleep, and physical exhaustion coupled with poor lighting. They also aver that in the recount of November 24, 1967, in Election Case 1888, the error they committed was confirmed.

But the court, acting on the foregoing petition, on December 6, 1967, issued an order in said Election Case 1895 granting not only the board’s petition for correction with reference to petitioner Magsino, as prayed for therein, but also directed the board of canvassers to credit Wenceslao Vivas with 64 votes instead of 60 votes appearing in the election returns for precinct 94. The court’s reason for directing the correction as to the votes obtained by Vivas — in spite of the fact that the board did not petition for this — is that during the recounting in Election Case 1888. Vivas made of record "that he obtained 64 votes although this was not given due consideration during that hearing."cralaw virtua1aw library

A move by petitioner Magsino to reconsider the portion of the order of December 6, 1967 in Election Case 1895 just adverted to, to eliminate therefrom the directive to the board of canvassers to credit respondent Wenceslao Vivas with 64 votes instead of 60, was thwarted below.

Offshoot is the present original petition before this Court for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. We issued a restraining order. Upon the return of respondent Vivas, and the oral arguments at the hearing held on December 19, 1967, the case is now before us for decision on the merits.

1. The order of respondent judge in Election Case 1895 (instituted by all the members of the board of inspectors) directing the correction of the election returns in precinct 94 by increasing the number of votes received by petitioner Magsino from 61 to 69, in our opinion, is well taken. We perceive no abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge. There is the impressive unanimity on the part of the Chairman of the board, the inspectors, and the poll clerk — in the petition subscribed and sworn to by all of them — that actually a mistake was committed. The order in this respect is in line with the provisions of Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, 1 and the jurisprudence of this Court that correction may be ordered only upon the unanimous consent of all the members of the board. 2 Of course, in the exercise of its discretion whether to grant or deny the authority to correct mistakes, a judge may satisfy himself as to the truth of the inspectors’ petition and of the error. 3 The judge need not open the ballot boxes to ascertain the truth of the inspectors’ affidavits. 4 But where, as in this case, the ballot boxes were actually opened and the recount of the votes for Magsino in fact made and the error of the inspectors confirmed, the order of the judge to amend the returns as to said candidate is more than justified.

2. But respondent Wenceslao Vivas in effect argues that it would be unjust to him if respondent judge’s order of December 6, 1967 be dismembered, such that correction of the returns for precinct 94 be allowed as to petitioner and denied as to him. Really, if official recount of the votes for Vivas were actually made and it be an established fact that Vivas in that precinct obtained 64 votes instead of 60 which appear in the returns, his pose merits serious consideration. Because, adherence to form over substance is not to be exalted.

But the claim of respondent Vivas that the votes he garnered in precinct 94 should be increased from 60 to 64 loses potency on the face of the fact that respondent judge in his order of November 24, 1967 (Case 1888) did not make a finding that in the recount then made, the votes tallied for Vivas actually numbered 64. His own petition for recount in Election Case 1890 states that his reason for the recount is the fact that "the ballots were actually read and recorded by petitioner" in the course of the recounting in Election Case 1888. This statement is echoed by respondent judge himself in the order of December 6, 1967 in Election Case 1895 when he made the statement therein that during the recounting in Election Case 1888, the increased number of votes of Vivas "was made of record by him" (Vivas). It is well to recall at this point that the board of inspectors after the recount in Election Case 1888 unanimously asked for a correction of the returns of the votes cast for petitioner Magsino. But the same board of inspectors failed to move in reference to the alleged increased votes of respondent Vivas. And, we are loathe to tag the members of the board of inspectors with partiality. For, none is suggested in the record. To use as basis for correction of returns, Vivas’ statement as to the votes he received in precinct 94, is to pass the line which divides averment from established fact.

There was grave abuse of discretion when respondent judge, in his order of December 6, 1967, directed the correction of the returns from precinct 94 insofar as respondent Wenceslao Vivas is concerned, to increase the number of votes received by said respondent from 60 votes to 64 votes. Because, as petitioner puts it: "If the entry of `60’ votes for herein Respondent Wenceslao Vivas in the Election Return of Precinct No. 94 is amended to `64’, he would have 2 votes more than those of herein Petitioner Rogelio Magsino; otherwise, the latter would have 2 votes more than those of the former."cralaw virtua1aw library

For the reasons given, the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted; the order of respondent judge of December 6, 1967 in Election Case No. 1895 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch II, only insofar as it directs the correction of the election returns with respect to respondent Wenceslao Vivas, is hereby declared null and void; and the restraining order heretofore issued herein is hereby made permanent.

Costs against respondent Wenceslao Vivas. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 154 of the Revised Election Code reads: "Alterations in the statement. — After the announcement of the result of the election in the polling place, the board of inspectors shall not make any alteration or amendment in any of its statements, unless it be so ordered by a competent court."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Benitez v. Paredes and Dizon, 52 Phil. 1, 11; Aguilar v. Navarro, 55 Phil. 898, 903; Board of Election Inspectors of Boñgabon v. Sison, 55 Phil. 914; 918; Lacson v. Commission on Elections, L-16261, December 28, 1959; Gumpal v. The Court of First Instance of Isabela, 110 Phil. 287; Astilla v. Asuncion, L-22246, February 29, 1964; Javier v. The Court of First Instance of Antique, L-24747, February 28, 1966.

3. Board of Election Inspectors of Boñgabon v. Sison, supra, at p. 917; Rabe v. Commission on Elections, 108 Phil. 260.

4. Rabe v. Commission on Elections, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15829 December 4, 1967 - ROMAN R. SANTOS v. FLORENCIO MORENO

  • G.R. No. L-24717 December 4, 1967 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28315 December 8, 1967 - AMBROCIO JANAIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28358 December 8, 1967 - JULIAN G. GINETE v. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18857 December 11, 1967 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. ESTEBAN M. SADANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21520 December 11, 1967 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21616 December 11, 1967 - GERTRUDES F. CUAYCONG, ET AL. v. LUIS D. CUAYCONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21849 December 11, 1967 - LOURDES VDA. DE MAGALONA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22325 December 11, 1967 - CORAZON M. ESPINO v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22471 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLOMON A. LIZARDO

  • G.R. No. L-23508 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLY P. CORTEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23817 December 11, 1967 - FRANCISCA LAZO v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24221 December 11, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24521 December 11, 1967 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS v. RAMON A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25245 December 11, 1967 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO ALILLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28348 December 15, 1967 - BERNARDINO ABES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21441 December 15, 1967 - RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 546 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINADOR F. FLORES v. LUIS R. LOZADA

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-22585 December 18, 1967 - NICANOR B. PAGKALINAWAN v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22753 December 18, 1967 - JESUS RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23220 December 18, 1967 - CIRIACO INGCO v. BENEDICTO M. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23699 December 18, 1967 - JUANITO CHAN v. GREGORIO B. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-21422 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27826 December 18, 1967 - PASTORA GASPAY, ET AL. v. CESAR SANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24510 & L-24525 December 18, 1967 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL. v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23191 December 19, 1967 - GERONIMO G, ESGUERRA, ET AL. v. FELIPE M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22269 December 20, 1967 - AMANDO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23661 December 20, 1967 - JOSE MANANGOL BARTOLOME, ET AL. v. JUSTO BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-24572 December 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 December 22, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22512 & L-22514 December 22, 1967 - ANDRES E. LAZARO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21150 December 26, 1967 - AMADO CAYANAN, ET AL. v. LEON DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21577 December 26, 1967 - REMEDIOS C. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22022 December 26, 1967 - EMILIANO T. RAMIREZ v. JOSE SY CHIT

  • G.R. No. L-23135 December 26, 1967 - MARIANO SUMILANG v. SATURNINA RAMAGOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23764 December 26, 1967 - JUAN SUMERARIZ v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23887 December 26, 1967 - AGO TIMBER CORPORATION v. JESUS S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24200 December 26, 1967 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26947 December 26, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28359 December 26, 1967 - ABDULLAH SANGKI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28395 December 26, 1967 - LILIA PEÑA, ET AL. v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22517 December 26, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23986 December 26, 1967 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. JACINTO CALLANTA

  • G.R. No. L-28349 December 28, 1967 - CONSUELO V. CALO, ET AL. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28206 December 28, 1967 - PRISCILO G. INTING v. ZOILA L. CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-18649 December 29, 1967 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20156 December 29, 1967 - IN RE: MANUEL TO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-21293 December 29, 1967 - REGINO G. AGUIZAP v. EUGENIO BASILIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21641 December 29, 1967 - MANUEL IBAVIOSA v. BENIGNO TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22057 December 29, 1967 - ROMUALDO MONTESINO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO RULLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BATO

  • G.R. No. L-23773-74 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PINEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-28328 December 29, 1967 - NICANOR C. IBUNA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28396 December 29, 1967 - AGRIPINO DEMAFILES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20894 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22169 December 29, 1967 - SERGIO ALABAT, ET AL. v. TORIBIA TANDOG VDA. DE ALABAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21309 December 29, 1967 - BERNARDO PICARDAL, ET AL. v. CENON LLADAS

  • G.R. No. L-23504 December 29, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA v. JUAN T. DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23886 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PERIQUET v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28340 December 29, 1967 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.