RECAREDO B. CASTILLO, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, SURIGAO DEL SUR, ETC., ETC., ET AL. RESPONDENT AND APPELLEES. RECAREDO B.…

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur (in Sp. Civil Case
No. 1) dismissing the petition for mandamus or recounting of votes filed by
Recaredo B. Castillo et al., against the Provincial
Board of Canvassers of Surigao del Sur and the respective municipal Board of canvassers for the
municipalities of Tago, Tamlag, San Miguel, Cagwait, Maribatag, Oteiza, Barobo, Bislig, and Lingig in Surigao del Sur. Insofar as pertinent to this proceeding, the facts are
as follows:

At the start of the canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of the
returns of the general elections held on November 12, 1963, Recaredo B. Castillo and others, candidates for the
positions of governor, vice-governor, and provincial board members of Surigao del Sur, and the municipal
positions in the municipalities of Tandag, Tago, San Miguel, Marihatag, Cagwait, Oteiza, Bislig and Lingig, same province,
filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur to compel the
respondents provincial and municipal boards of canvassers to recount the votes
cast in all the precincts of the named municipalities, on the ground that the
election returns therefrom were dictated by armed
bands and constabulary soldiers, and that votes cast for petitioners were read
and counted by the election inspectors in favor of their opponents, candidates
of the Liberal Party.

In their respective answers to the petition, the Provincial Board of
Canvassers set up, among others, the defense of lack of cause of action; while
the municipal board of canvassers of Tago alleged
that, there having been a proclamation of the elected officials for said
municipality on November 18,
1963, said body had already become functus oficio.
The respondent municipal board of canvassers of Oteiza
claimed that, it being a new municipality, the canvass of the election returns
from Oteiza would be undertaken by the provincial
board of canvassers as provided by law.

There being no writ of preliminary injunction issued by the court,^[1]the canvass of the election returns proceeded.
In the course of such partial canvass, certain discrepancies between the returns
and tally sheets in certain precincts were alleged to have been noted. Thus, on
December 2, 1663,
petitioners filed a supplemental petition specially pointing out such
discrepancies, involving Precinct No. 5 of Tago, and
Precincts Nos. 26 and 12 of Cantilan, which were not
originally included in the petition, and which discrepancies allegedly would
affect the result of the election.

In fact, the petition for preliminary injunction was actually withdrawn by
the petitioners themselves on December
5, 1903.

After hearing the matter of absence of cause of action set up by the
respondent Provincial Board of Canvassers, the court, in its order of December
9, 1963, dismissed the petition, on the ground that although the employment of
force and intimidation resulting in falsification of an election return could be
the basis of a recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code, because
in such instance it would be as if there has been no return for said precinct,
yet in the present case, such irregularity has not been shown to exist. It was
also pointed out that the original petition failed to show by specific figures,
the difference in votes produced by the alleged employment of armed bands and
perpetration of fraud, which could have materially affected the result of the
election. Furthermore, the action was declared improperly directed against the
board of canvassers which under the Revised Election Code have no authority to
conduct a recount of the votes, the said authority
properly belonged only to the court of first instance. As a consequence of the
aforesaid dismissal of the petition for recount, the canvass of the returns was
continued and the elected candidates were proclaimed on December 14, 1963. These proclaimed winners,
accordingly, took their oath of office on January 1, 1964 Upon the other
hand, petitioners Recaredo Castillo, et al. appealed
the order of dismissal of the petition for recount to this Court.

It is evident from the nature of this case that the present appeal will no
longer serve the original purpose for which the petition was filed in the lower
court. Proclamation of the declared winners having been made and the latter
having already started discharging the functions of their respective offices,
the remedy left to petitioners is only to contest their election. And this
remedy was already availed of specifically by petitioner Recaredo B. Castillo, whose protest against the proclamation
of Adela Serra Ty, as governor-elect of Surigao
del Sur, is pending
resolution of the Court of First Instance of said province (Civil Case No. 26,
Elec. Case No. 2). It is clear, therefore, that this appeal has already become
moot and academic. The Court’s authority to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm final judgments or decrees of the lower courts is understood to refer to
the determination of live, justiciable issues for the
purpose of settling or putting an end to the controversy between the parties, in
a particular case.

This is a new petition for mandamus, filed by Recaredo B. Castillo, as protestant in Civil Case No. 26,
Election Case No. 2 of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, to compel the
respondent Judge to continue with the revision or examination of the contested
ballots subject of said proceedings.

It was alleged that in the course of the proceeding in said election protest,
and after the parties had appointed their respective commissioners preparatory
to the revision and recounting of the ballots, respondent Judge issued an order
dated November 21, 1964, restraining the commissioners from setting a date for
such revision and recounting of ballots, until the appeal from the order of
dismissal of Election Case No. 1 (G.R. No. L-22765, Castillo, et al. vs.
Provincial Board of Canvassers, et al.) has been
finally decided or withdrawn by the protestant, allegedly to forestall the
possibility of duplicating the commissioners’ work.

In view of the conclusion we have reached in G.R. No. L-22765, the
proceedings in Election Case No. 2 must now proceed until the contest therein is
finally terminated.

WHEREFORE, the appeal in G. R. No. L-22765 is
(hereby dismissed for being moot and academic. And since the reason given by the
respondent Judge in G. R. No. L-24038 for not proceeding with the election
protest no longer exists, the petition for mandamus is
likewise dismissed. No costs in both cases.

 SO
ORDERED.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo,
Reyes, .J.B.L,. Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P
and Zaldivar, J.J. ,
concur.