MARCOS ALIDO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. FAUSTINO ALAR (MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF BORONGAN, SAMAR), RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

In a petition for Mandamus
filed by Marcos Alido with the CFI of Samar, asking that Faustino Alar,
Municipal Treasurer of Borongan, Samar, be compelled to issue to him
copies of Election Results (Comm. on Elections Form No. 8), as called
for in the Instructions for Boards of Inspectors, the Court rendered
judgment on the pleadings, the dispositive portion of which states:

“IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the respondent or his successor
is hereby ordered to furnish or issue to the petitioner within
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of this decision certified copies
of C. E. Form No. 8, election results, corresponding to the forty-one
(41) precincts of Borongan of the last general elections (Nov. 10,
1959), and to pay the costs.”

Against this judgment the present appeal was interposed.

Petitioner
Marcos Alido was one of the voted candidates for councilor for
Borongan, Samar, in the November 10, 1959 Elections. The results of the
Election in the 41 precincts were contained in Commission on Elections
Form No. 8, which was required to be accomplished in the Instructions
for Boards of Inspectors, and which form was submitted to the
respondent Treasurer. It is claimed that the results (Form No. 8) are
public and/or official documents which may be shown and/or released to
the public upon demand; that notwithstanding repeated demands, both
oral and written, made by petitioner upon the respondent, for the
issuance of certified copies of the election results, as contained in
the Commission on Elections Form No. 8, to him, respondent refused to
do so; and that he has no other adequate, speedy and plain remedy in
the ordinary course of law.

Respondent’s Answer, aside from
the customary admissions and denials, interposed the affirmative
defense that “there is no provision in the Revised Election Code that
makes it the duty of the Municipal Treasurer to issue a certificate or
copies of certificates of election results of any candidate”, and that
the document was only intended by the Commission on Elections for
specific purposes and that he was not empowered to issue certificates
of said document, since it is only the Board of Inspectors in the
respective precincts, which are bound to release a certificate, as to
the number of votes received by any candidate, upon demand by said
candidate or his watcher (Sec. 153, Election Code).

Upon the basis of the above facts, as contained in the respective pleadings of the parties, the decision on review was rendered.

In his appeal, respondent assigned a singular error: That the trial court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus.

We share the view of respondent-appellant. The writ of mandamus
has no legal basis at all, in so far as the case at bar is concerned.
The petitioner has not shown any law which enjoins the respondent to
issue the certificates he sought. Neither was he able to show (at least
by his pleadings) that he has a clear right to be furnished with such
certificates. The fact that he was a candidate for councilor did not,
to our mind, entitle him to ask the certificate. No mention was made
for what purpose petitioner was asking it. If it is for the purpose of
showing any discrepancy or irregularity in the other documents
connected with the election, it was premature, since it is alleged that
no proclamation had then been made as to who was elected. No election
protest was pending, wherein the petitioner would use said
certificates. And even if there was such protest, the proper procedure
would have been to ask the court to issue a sub-poena duces tecum
for the production of said documents in court. The form in question,
had been intended by the Commission on Elections for a specific purpose.

“Election Result (C. E. Farm No. 8).
In addition to the Election Return (Election Form No. 23) each board
shall accomplish the Election Result for numbers of votes received by
each candidate in the precinct. Only one copy of this form shall be
prepared and shall be submitted by the board to the city/municipal
treasurer. This form shall be used exclusively for the purpose of
enabling the city/municipal treasurer to make an unofficial release to
the public of the results of the election in each precinct and to wire
the Commission on Elections through the provincial treasurer the
complete official results of the election for senator in the
city/municipality.”

It would seem,
therefore, that the said form is intended to be used for the purpose of
enabling the municipal treasurer to make an unofficial release to the
public of the results of the election in each precinct and to wire the
Commission on Elections, through the provincial treasurer, the complete
official results of the election for senator in the municipality. The
main object of the directive is to facilitate the work of the
Commission on Elections in promptly gathering advanced information as
to the results of the election for senators in the Philippines, which
is of general public concern and interest. It is true that the herein
petitioner is a part of the public, and he has the right to know the
results of the election in his municipality, but this fact alone does
not entitle him, as a matter of right, to a certified copy thereof, in
the absence of a specific provision of law to that effect. To allow any
inhabitant of a municipality to come at any time to the municipal
treasurer and demand certified copies of such documents in all the
precincts (41 all told in the municipality in question), would be to
burden unnecessarily the office of such official. The directive of the
Commission did not have such an intention. To compel the respondent, by
mandamus, to issue the certificates, would amount to imposing
upon him something not covered by the instructions. Surely enough, this
is not the province of mandamus. The right asserted must be clear and the duty enjoined must, in the same way, be clearly defined.

In order that mandamus
will lie, “the duties to be enforced must be such as are clearly and
peremptorily enjoined by law or by reason of official station (Tabique vs. Duvall, 16 Phil., 324).

Moreover, there are other
remedies available to petitioner in which he may ask for the issuance
of the certificate. Inasmuch as the form is a directive issued by the
Commission on Elections, and of administrative character, a
disobedience thereof should have been brought first to the attention of
the said Commission, for appropriate action.

In view of all
the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and
another entered, finding that the petitioner-appellee is not entitled
to the writ of mandamus. Case is, therefore, dismissed, with costs against petitioner Marcos Alido.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Baustista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.