DOMINGO Z. VILLACARLOS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TERNATE, CAVITE AND BAYANI CAT…

In the regular elections held on November 10, 1959 petitioner Domingo Z.
Villacarlos and respondent Bayani Catamisan were registered candidates for the
office of municipal mayor of Ternate, Cavite. On the following November 21
Villacarlos filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Cavite,
docketed as case No. 57, for recounting of the ballots in three precincts of the
said municipality (Nos. 1-A, 5 and 6) pursuant to sections 163 and 168 of the
Revised Election Code, on the ground of alleged discrepancies as to number of
votes between the election returns and the certificates of election results
issued by the board of election inspectors to the watchers in those precincts,
in accordance with section 153 of the same Code. As prayed for in the petition
the court, presided by respondent Hon. Jose B. Jimenez, issued a writ of
preliminary injunction on November 23, 1959 to restrain tjbe municipal board of
canvassers from proclaiming the winning candidate for mayor of the municipality
of Ternate.

Respondent Bayani Catamisan filed an opposition to petition, interposing
affirmative defenses, namely, that the certificates of election results alleged
in the petition are not authentic documents referred to in Sections 163 and 168
of the Revised Election Code; that such certificates of election results are
falsified, altered, unofficial and/or self-serving statements; and that the
ballot boxes in Precincts 1-A and 6 had been tampered with and the integrity of
their contents had been destroyed or corrupted and so would not reflect the will
of the electorate who voted. In the course of the hearing of the petition
evidence was introduced by respondent to prove the alleged tampering of the
ballot boxes. Petitioner objected on the ground that the evidence was immaterial
and irrelevant, since the jurisdiction of the Court was limited to the
ministerial act of recounting the votes and did not extend to an inquiry into
the commission of election anomalies, which should be ventilated in an election
protest. The court overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to be
received. A motion to strike out was thereafter filed but was denied, as was
also the subsequent motion to reconsider.

On December 29, 1959 Domingo Villacarios filed the instant petition for
certiorari and prohibition praying that the rulings and resolutions of
respondent court allowing the introduction of evidence concerning the alleged
tampering of the ballot boxes and denying petitioner’s motion to strike out be
set aside and annulled and that said court be ordered to desist from allowing
further evidence on the point to be presented. A writ of preliminary injunction
was issued by us on January 25, 1960, to restrain respondent court from
continuing with the trial of the main case until further orders. Before the writ
could be served, however, respondent Court, on the basis of our decision in the
case of Jose Parlade, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. Perfecto Quicho, et al., G. R. No.
L-16259, Dec. 29, 1959, dismissed the petition pending before it and lifted the
writ of preliminary injunction it had previously issued. As a result respondent
Bayani Catamisan was, on January 26, 1960, proclaimed mayor by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Ternate. No appeal or petition for review was taken by
any of the parties from the order of dismissal, and in their respective
manifestations subsequently filed before this Court they in effect admitted that
the issue involved in the instant petition has become academic and moot,
although petitioner asks that it be decided on the merits nevertheless, so that
a guide for future litigation may be laid down. We believe the reason given by
petitioner is not weighty enough to justify a disregard of the established
general rule that moot issues, which affect no rights of the parties, are not
proper for adjudication by the courts. In any event, consideration of the
question posed by petitioner is barred by the defense of lack of jurisdiction on
the part of respondent court to order a recount of the ballots cast in the three
precincts involved. The Parlade case, supra, has definitely settled that
the discrepancy in number of votes mentioned in section 163 of the Revised
Election Code, which would justify a recount, has reference to the number of
votes appearing in different copies of the election returns required by section
150, and not to the discrepancy between the election returns and any certificate
given by the board of inspectors to the watchers who may request them under
section 153.

The petition is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.
B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.