CESAR R. BORROMEO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, QUEZON CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

This being an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the
petition herein, the only question for our determination is one of law.  As stated in the order appealed from:

“The herein petitioner filed this petition for the annulment
of elections in Quezon City held on November 14, 1967
on the ground that the said elections was characterized by the commission of
serious frauds, irregularities and flagrant violation of the election law; that
one hundred forty eight (148) precincts with the respective numbers enumerated
in the said petition carries a report that in said precincts there were no
voting booths as appearing in the Official Comelec
Form No. 31; and that in several precincts although there exist voting booths
yet they were not more than one-half (1/2) of the legal requirements of one
booth for every twenty registered voters registered in the precinct, and other
similar violations; and consequently, prayed that the writ of preliminary injunction
be issued to temporarily enjoin, stop or restrain or prohibit the Board of
Canvassers of Quezon City or Commission on Elections
to proclaim the winning candidates, which prayer is now moot and academic.  The second prayer is that after due hearing a
declaration be made that the elections held in Quezon
City on November 14, was not free, honest and untrammeled, as a result thereof
there was a failure of elections, and consequently the result of said elections
be declared null and, void, and other reliefs as may
be in consonance with the constitutional mandate of free, honest and orderly
elections.

“The respondents, namely, the Commission on Elections, the Quezon City Board of Canvassers and the duly proclaimed and
elected officials from the mayor down to the Councilors, filed a motion to
dismiss said petition on the ground that the petition fails to state a cause of
action; that the petition is barred by a prior judgment; and that there is
another action pending before this court involving the same parties and raising
the same issues.  Respondent Jesus P. Perlas, Jr., filed his answer with special and affirmative
defenses.  Said motion to dismiss was
opposed in writing by the petitioner’s lawyer Antonio C. Amor
who argued his side of the case while Atty. Alejandro F. de Santos appeared and
argued for the respondents.”

Relying mainly upon our decision in Abes
vs. Commission on Elections,^[1]
the Court of First Instance of Rizal granted said
motion to dismiss, and the Court having subsequently refused to reconsider its
order to this effect, petitioner Cesar R. Borromeo
interposed the present appeal.

Citing Nacionalista Party vs.
Commission on Elections^[2]
and City Board of Canvassers vs. Moscoso,^[3]
we dismissed the petition in the Abes case for the
annulment of the very same election for local officers of Quezon
City involved in the case at bar, despite the fact that the irregularities
alleged by Abes and his co-petitioners in said former
case are more serious and numerous than those averred in the petition herein.  The parity between the Abes
case and the one at bar is assailed upon the ground that Abes
had ought the annulment of said election by the Commission on Elections,
which, we held, has no such power, whereas, in the present case, petitioner
applied for said relief from the Court of First Instance of Rizal.  It should be noted, however, that, apart from
the question whether the Commission on Elections had the power to grant the
relief prayed for in the Abes case, one of the issues
raised therein was whether or not a given election could be annulled in an
action brought exclusively for such purpose, without any election protest therefor.  We then
decided such issue in the negative, not only invoking with approval our ruling
in Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections^[4]
to the effect that “the power to decide election contests necessarily
includes the power to determine the validity or nullity of the votes questioned
by either of the contestants,” but, also, pointing out:

“Not that petitioner are bereft of remedy.  The course to pursue is pointed out to
them in City Board of Canvassers vs. Moscoso,
heretofore cited, x x x –

“‘The question of whether or not there had been terrorism,
vote-buying and other irregularities in the 1959 elections in Tacloban City should be ventilated in a regular election
protest, pursuant to section 174 of the Election Code, and not in a
petition to enjoin the city board of canvassers from canvassing the election
returns and proclaiming the winning candidates for municipal offices.  The duty of the board in this regard is more
or less ministerial; it does not pass upon the validity or invalidity of the
ballots cast, and its action is necessarily without prejudice to the
determination of such question in a proper court proceeding later.  This proceeding under section 174 should
be filed within two weeks after the procclamation of
the result of the election and hence necessa­rily implies a previous canvass of
the votes by the board of canvassers. 
xxx”^[5]

In other words, existing laws do not permit a direct action to
annul an election, like the one at bar. 
Said remedy may be granted only as an incident to an election
contest.  Hence, the petition in this case
does not allege a cause of action for the relief sought therein.

Indeed, petitioner concedes that one of the tests to determine
whether or not a cause of action exists is whether the petition shows
“that the petitioner has suffered an injury?” Petitioner alleges,
however, no such injury.  In the petition
herein, it is merely alleged:

“That the Petitioner as a citizen deeply interested in
honest, free and equal elections has been violated, and to dispel all doubts
as to the validity of the elections held in Quezon City on November 14, 1967, is entitled to
the immediate hearing of the above-entitled Petition for the sake of honest,
free and equal elections.”^[6]

The interest thus alleged in the petition is that which
petitioner shares in common with the community in general.  Such interest is manifestly inadequate to
entitle him to seek the relief prayed for, assuming that he has resorted to the
proper procedure, which he has not.  Any
other view would justify the institution of proceedings for the annulment of an
election by any member of our population or citizenry, and, hence, by any member
of the losing political party.  It is
obvious that this is not sanctioned by our laws.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from should be, as it is
hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner herein.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
G. R. No. L-28348, Dec. 15, 1967.

^[2]
85 Phil. 149, 155.

^[3]
G. R. No. L-16365, Sept. 30, 1963.

^[4] Supra.

^[5] Supra.  Underscoring ours.

^[6] Underscoring
ours.