G.R. No. 1697. January 18, 1904

On the 6th day of January, 1904, the plaintiff made application to
Justice Willard, of this court, praying for a preliminary injunction
against the said defendant, to prohibit it from executing an order of
the 17th of December made by the said board, which order directed a
special election to be held in the pueblo of Santa Rosa, of said
province, on the 12th day of January, 1904. The application for the
preliminary injunction was denied by Justice Willard. On the 7th day
of January the said plaintiff, having been notified of the decision of
Justice Willard, amended said application by making it an application
for the same preliminary injunction to this court. The facts
in the said application for the said preliminary injunction are as
follows:

1. That on the 1st day of December the election for municipal officials was duly and legally held in the said municipality.
2. That on the same day notice was given, granting a period of three days
   within which any resident of the said municipality of Santa Rosa might
   present to the said municipal board of election, or to the president of
   the same, by writing, protests to be justly and legally considered
   against the parties declared elected by the electoral judges.

3. At
   6.15 on the night of December 3, a protest was presented to the board
   of electors for supposed infringement of the elections, the
   nullification of which was asked.

4. Notwithstanding said protests, the provincial board of La Laguna
   declared the elections valid and ordered the municipal secretary of
   Santa Rosa to communiciate to the newly elected officials that they
   could qualify and take possession of their respective offices the first
   Monday in January.

Said ruling of approval was, adopted by the provincial hoard of La
Laguna in session held the 7th day of December, 1.903, in the following
terms: “In view of the duplicate return of the municipal elections of *
* * Santa Rosa * * * and the protests presented, the board has resolved
that said municipal elections were legal, considering the motive upon
which the protests were founded insufficient to believe that the result
of the elections is not truly the will of the electors.”

Notwithstanding the said decision of the provincial board, it did,
by a ruling of the 17th of December, 1903, amend its approval in these
terms: “Agapito Carpena and other residents of Santa Rosa, having
presented to the provincial board an amplification of the protest
against the result of the municipal elections of said pueblo, and it
appearing that an error was made in approving the result of the
municipal elections of Santa Rosa, and it having been found upon a
further examination of the protest that there were more voters who
deposited their ballots in the ballot box than actually appeared in the
list previously posted in the public places: It is resolved,
That the approval ratified in the session of December 7, 1903, be
amended, that the result of the municipal election of Santa Rosa be
declared illegal, and that a new municipal election be ordered to be
held on Tuesday, the 12th of January, 1904, and that this resolution be
communicated to the municipal council and to the board of electoral
judges.”

Section 13 of Act No. 82 of the Philippine Commission provides for
the method of counting the ballots and declaring the result in
municipal elections in these Islands, and provides for a term of three
days after the counting of the said ballots in which “any resident of
the town may present to the board or to the chairman thereof, in
writing, such objections, as he may deem just and legal against those
declared elected.” Subsection (b) of said section 13 provides
that “on the day following the said term of three days a duplicate of
the election certificate and the objections made, if any, shall be
sent by the chairman of the board of judges to the provincial board.
Should the provincial board, upon investigation and after hearing of
evidence, if necessary, find the election legal, they shall, within
seven days after the receipt of said documents, direct the newly
elected officers to qualify and enter upon their duties on the clay
fixed by this Act, but, if the provincial board determine that there
has been an illegality committed in the election of any officer or that
any candidate returned is not eligible, they shall so declare in
writing, with the reasons therefor, and shall order a special election
to fill the vacancies thus occasioned and shall certify their
finding and order to the municipal secretary, who shall spread the same
on the records of the council.”

The facts quoted from the application of the said plaintiff show the following :

1. That the election was held on the 1st day of December, 1903.
2. That upon the evening of the 3d day of December a protest was presented to the election board.
3. That upon the 7th day of December, 1903, the said provincial board
   found the said protest insufficient to declare the said municipal
   election illegal.

4. Later, upon the 17th
   day of December, after having been presented to the said provincial
   board an amplification of the former protest against the irregularity
   of the said election in the said municipality, the provincial board
   amended its resolution of the 7th day of December, 1903, and declared
   the said municipal election illegal, and, in accordance with the
   provisions of subsection (b) of
   section 13 of the said Act No. 82 of the Philippine Commission, ordered
   a new election to be held on the 12th day of January, 1904.

Section 162 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines an injunction as follows:

“An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act.”

In the foregoing case it appears that the provincial board has done
all it can do with reference to the special election to be held in the
said pueblo of Santa Rosa. The record shows that it has ordered the
election. Everything that is to be done, with reference to the
election, subsequent to the said order, is done upon the part 6f the
proper officials of the municipality of Santa Rosa. There is nothing
left for the provincial board to do with reference to the special
election so ordered; therefore, there is no “particular acts’ on the
part of the said provincial board relating to the said election which
this court can order said provincial board to refrain from doing.

The application for the preliminary injunction is therefore denied.

Subsection (b) of section 13 of said Act No. 82 provides that the provincial board “shall, within seven days
after the receipt of said documents (protest), direct,” etc., either
that the newly elected officers enter upon their duties, etc., or
“shall order a special election,” etc. If, for any reason, the
resolution of the provincial board should be void or unlawful, then the
proper parties might, by a preliminary injunction based upon a final
right to the writ of prohibition, prevent the municipal election board
from complying with the same.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Willard, Mapa, and Mc Donough, JJ., concur.