G.R. No. L-7312. February 26, 1954

Resultando que el Juzgado de Primera Instancia recurrido, en 23 de
diciembre de 1953, ha dictado sentencia ordenando a las juntas de
inspectores de eleccion de los precintos Nos. 5B, 8, 12, 15 y 16 del
municipio de Gandara, y No. 1 del distrito municipal de Matuguinao,
todos de la provincia de Samar, que corrijan inmediatamente las
respectivas actas de eleccion en la forma que especifica, y denego la
peticion relativa a la correccion del acta del precinto 14 de Gandara; y

Considerando que el Juzgado recurrido ha obrado en virtud de la
jurisdiccion que le confiere el articulo 154 del Codigo Electoral
Revisado; que su resolucion rechazando como prueba de uno de los
candidatos en el juicio sumario el testimonio de electores acerca de sus
votos para el cargo de representante esta arreglada a derecho, y que su
citada sentencia es final e inapelable (Aguilar y Casapao vs.
Navarro, 55 Phil., 898; Clarin vs. Juez Alo, supra, p.
432.)

Se deniega el recurso, y se disuelve el interdicto prohibitorio
expedido el 11 de diciembre de 1953, con efecto inmediato, con las
costas. Asi se ordena.

Paras, Pres., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo,
Labrador, y Concepcion, MM., estan conformes.

---

DISSENTING:

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.,:

Tito V. Tizon and Marciano Lim, together with three others, were
candidates for the office of Representatives for the second district of
Samar. After elections, copies of all election returns coming from all
precincts of said district were delivered to the Provincial Board of
Canvassers. Before the Board could finish the canvass, seven, cases were
instituted in the Court of First Instance of Samar where the
correctness of the election returns for six precincts in the
municipality of Gandara and one precinct in the municipal district of
Matuguinao was challenged with respect to the number of votes appearing
therein.

It was alleged that the number of votes originally appearing in the
returns for candidates Tizon and Lim was erased and a higher number of
votes was written for Tizon and a lesser number for Lim. Not all the
members of the board of inspectors asked for the correction of the
returns, as in six of the precincts involved one inspector objected, and
in one two inspectors, in sworn statements submitted by them to the
court. Motions to dismiss were filed by respondents on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction, but they were denied. Hence this petition for
certiorari and mandamus.

The provision of law invoked by petitioning inspectors in favor of
the correction in section 154 of the Revised Election Code which
provides that “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
competent court.” It is contended, and the majority opinion of this
Court has so held, that this legal provision applies to the present case
even if the nature of the error to be corrected is controversial in
character. I dissent from this finding.

I agree with the majority that there need not be a unanimity on the
part of the inspectors in their desire to seek the correction of an
election return from the court under section 154. The majority of them
would suffice to bring the matter to court. What I contend is that when
one at least of the inspectors disputes the fact that an error has been
committed, the issue becomes controversial and it takes the case out of
the jurisdiction of the court.

The reason is obvious. If the issue is controversial, there might
need a long, tedious, and protracted hearing where considerable evidence
has to be presented which of necessity will delay the proclamation of
the winner to the prejudice of public interest. And the situation is
aggravated by the fact that the controversy is made dependent upon
secondary evidence. The court is powerless under the law invoked to
resort to the ballots. To allow the court to act on such controversy
merely on circumstantial evidence would be to set wide open the door to
collusion and fraud. In my opinion, the subject which might be
cognizable under section 154 merely refers to errors that are clerical
and which do not involve any argument or dispute. To hold otherwise
would be a flagrant encroachment on the functions of the House Electoral
Tribunal.

We do not need to go far to look for precedents. Right in this
jurisdiction we have one which is on all fours with the present
controversy. I refer to the case of Benitez vs. Paredes and
Dizon, 52 Phil., 10. In that case, where Tomas Dizon and Eulogio Benitez
were candidates for governor for the Province of Laguna, Dizon brought
an action No. 1 of Longos to correct the copies of the election returns
of that precinct so as to show that 157 instead of 207 votes were
erroneously counted and adjudicated to Eulogio Benitez. In view of lack
of unanimity on the part of the inspectors in so far as the correction
of the return is concerned, this Court ruled that the respondent Judge
lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. This Court, in a lucid
language, said: “From the moment that the inspectors or any of them do
not agree with the corrections of the returns, the case becomes
contentious and, as such, requires the presentation of evidence in order
that the court may determine on what ground to grant or not to grant
authority to amend the returns in question. Such procedure must, of
necessity, be subject to contingencies which will prevent the prompt
termination of elections, which must be avoided in the interest of
public good.”

The law on this matter remains the same. This ruling is still a good
law. The majority opinion has not advanced any plausible reason why it
should be disregarded in the present case. I vote for granting the
petition.

Se deniega el recurso.