MAUYAG MATANOG, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CRISTOBAL ALEJANDRO AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LANAO DEL SUR, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MARANTAO, LANAO DEL SUR, …

In the November 12, 1963 elections, petitioner Mauyag Matanog and
respondent Cota Cornel were among the candidates voted for the office
of Municipal Mayor of Marantao, Lanao del Sur. While the conduct of the
elections was peaceful and orderly, two cases arose out of the said
elections. One for Mandamus (Special Civil Action No. 1290) to compel
the Municipal Board of Canvassers to canvass the election returns
including that of Precinct No. 9 and proclaim the duly elected
officials, presented by respondent Cota Cornel, and the other for a
Judicial Recount with Preliminary Injunction (Sp. Civil Action No.
1292) instituted by petitioner Matanog, to count the votes cast in
Precinct No. 9, claiming that in the preparation of Election Return
Exhibit K, in question, the Board of Inspectors unlawfully increased
the number of votes for respondent from 157 to 297; and said election
return was not prepared at the time and place it should have been
prepared; and that the difference appearing in the said return will
adversely affect the results of the election. The two cases were heard
jointly and after the parties have adduced their respective evidence,
the lower court rendered judgment, the pertinent portions of which read—

“* * * The Municipal Treasurer of Marantao who acted
as Secretary of the Board of Canvassers presented the election return
for Precinct No. 9. In this election return, there appears the
Mayoralty Candidates obtained the following votes (Exhibit ‘K’):

Cota Cornel …………………………………………………………………. 297

Mauyag Matanog……………………………………………………………… 1

Macurambon Barodi ……………………………………………………….. 70

Andang Rascal ……………………………………………………………….. 0

Mangondato Dato …………………………………………………………. 65

Naga Tagoranao ……………………………………………………………. 15

This
caused some confusion in the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers
because there was also presented a tally board where the said
candidates garnered the following votes (Exhibit J):

Cota Cornel………………………………………………………………….. 157

Mauyag Matanog……………………………………………………………… 1

Hacarambon Barodi ………………………………………………………. 118

Andang Rascal ………………………………………………………………… 0

Hangondato Dato………………………………………………………….. 105

Naga Tagoranao ……………………………………………………………. 30

During
the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, there was also
presented the copy of the election return from Ibrahim Ali, official
candidate of the Nacionalista Party for Board member. This copy of the
election return was sent to him by the Chairman of the Board of
Election Inspectors. In this copy, it was alleged that Cota Cornel
gathered 157 votes only but when Atty. Isaac Geolina, representative of
the Comelec was going to take it, said ropy disappeared and up to the
present time, it has never been recovered.

Lucas Calaca, a
member of the Board of Canvassers, questioned the canvassing of the
election return for Precinct No. 9 alleging that it should not be
canvassed because it was prepared outside the polling place. But
Magondacan Gutok, another member of the Board of Canvassers filed a
motion to canvass because he said there was no alteration in the
election return. Thero was controversy in the proceedings and when the
representative of the Comelec stated that there would be trouble, he
suspended the canvassing and advised the aid of Mauyag Matanog to file
a petition for a judicial recount.

X X X

The
evidence of candidate Mauyag Matanog tends to disclose that at about
11:00 p.m. of November 14. 1963, the Board of Election Inspectors of
Precinct No. 9, Marantao, Lanao del Sur, had finished its counting of
votes. But the inspectors could not accomplish the election return
because the chairman claimed that the blank forms of the election
return were lost. When Atty. Benjamin de la Peña, a representative of
the Comelec, was apprised of this incident, he raised his voice and
insisted that the election return be accomplished. However, later on,
he said he would wire the Comelec in Manila to send the blank forms.
*******

Then at about 7:00 a.m., November 15, 1963, Atty.
Mangontawar Guro, Cota Cornel and Maripa Bantki chairman of the board
of Inspectors handed to Atty Benjamin de la Peña, a copy of the
election return which was already accomplished. The copy of the
election return for the Municipal Treasurer was received by him thnr
the mail on November 21. 1963, Exh. ‘K’. And this is the copy submitted
by him to the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

The evidence
of Candidate Cota Cornel tends to show that tally board. Exhibits ‘J’
and J-F are not the tally boards which were used by the board of
election inspectors in counting the votes for Precint No. 9 of
Marantao, Lanao del Sur. According to the poll-clerk. Bonayo Renayong,
he was the one who wrote the number of votes for each candidate on the
tallv boards. After the counting, they were signed by all members of
the board. He was not able to deliver them to the Municipal Treasurer
in Marantao because he was not at the polling place until dawn. So, he
kept them. Then he could not also find the Municipal Treasurer in
Marantao, he then gave them to the chairman of the board of inspectors
to send to the Municipal Treasurer by mail.

Mariga Bangki,
the chairman of the board of election inspectors, testified that tally
boards Exhibits ‘J’ and ‘J-I’ are not the tally boards which they used
in the counting of votes. The tally boards which they used were duly
signed by all members of the board of inspectors. x x x.

After
counting of votes at midnight of November 14, 1963, all members of the
board signed the copies of the election return and placed them in the
envelopes. He could not find the Municipal Treasurer of Marantao in
order to give him the copies of the elo tion return. So at 2:00 a.m.,
November 15, 1963, he placed all copies of the election return inside
the ballot box and locked it. And then he gave the ballot box to the
P.C. In the morning at about 7:00, he returned to the P.C. Headquarters
to see Atty. de la Peña. He asked him where was the election return. He
answered that they were all inside the ballot box. They opened the box
and retrieved four (4) envelopes containing copies of election return.
He gave the envelope to Atty. de la Peña intended for the Comelec. He
denied that there was no blank form of election return, he also denied
the testimony of Lt. Decena and he denied having issued the certificate
of votes. Exh. ‘O’. He also denied having seen Atty. Mangontawar and
Cota Cornel at seven o’clock (7:00 a.m.) in the morning of November 15,
1963 at the P.C. Headquarters.

X X X

In
the rebuttal, the petitioner in ease No. 1292 presented Atty. Isaac
Geolina of the Comelec who confirmed the order he has gives in Exhibits
‘F’ ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘I’ appearing in the body of Exh. ‘E’. He further
testified that the Comelec ordered to suspend the canvassing and let
the parties come to Court because the election return was made outside
of the polling place, and that the tally boards Exhs. ‘J’ and ‘J-I’ do
not tally with the said election return. He said that the chairman of
the board of inspectors wanted to get back the tally board because it
was not complete. x x x.

Atty. Benjamin de la Peña, another
attorney of the Comelec elucidated some important matter in
controversy. According to him, the counting of votes in Precinct No. 9,
Harantao, was finished at 11:00 p.m. of November 14. But the election
return was not accomplished thereafter because the chairman said that
there was no election return blank form and he would accomplish it the
following morning, Exh. ‘T’ . After the counting, the members of the
Board of inspectors left the polling place without accomplishing the
election return. Then Atty. de la Peña ordered the chairman of the
board to deposit the ballot box and tally boards, Exhs. ‘J’ und ‘J-I’
to the P.C. Camp Kcithley. The tally boards were not signed by the
members of the board of inspectors because he did not anticipate that
there would be fraud.

Early morning cf November IS. 1963, at
about 8:00 o’clock. Atty. Mangontawar in company with Cota Cornel and
Chairman of the board handed to him an envelope containing an election
return. It is not true that Atty. Mangontawar Guro retrieved the said
envelope from the ballot box.

The Court in deciding these cases is confronted with two (2) questions:

First. Are the tally boards. Exhibits ‘J’ and ‘J-I’ admissible as evidence?

Second.
Should the election return. Exhibit ‘K’ be the basis of the Municipal
Board of Canvassers in canvassing the election return from Precinct No.
9, Marantao, Lanao del Sur?

X X X

The
Court has observed that the tally boards, Exhs. ‘J’ and ‘J-I’ have not
been signed by all the members of the Board of inspectors. The said
tally boards are not complete and cause some doubt as to their due
execution and genuiness. They are not public documents. The signatures
of the members of the board of inspectors are essential to their
validity. It is obvious that documents like these are susceptible to
substitution and falsification.

It has been found that the
election return. Exhibit ‘K’ has not been vitiated by another election
return having: a different entry; or that there is a difference of
votes of the same candidate written in words and those written in
figures in the same election return; or that the entry of votes in the
election return is falsified clearly; or that the entry in the election
is not legible; or that the election return was prepared thru force or
intimidation (Sec. 163, Revised Election Code. * * *).

Anyone
of these irregularities found in the accomplished election return is
sufficient basis for a Petition for Judicial Recounting. But in this
particular case at bar, it can be said that none exists.

IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the Petition for Judicial Recounting is hereby
denied; the Municipal Board of Canvassers for Marantao, Lanao del Sur,
is hereby ordered to canvass the election return, Exhibit ‘K’ from
Precinct No. 9; the Provincial Fiscal is hereby ordered to investigate
if in the accomplishment of the election return, Exhibit ‘K’, the
members of the Board of Inspectors violated any provision of the
Election Code and prosecute the party or parties responsible thereof as
warranted by the evidence.”

After the motion to have the above judgment reconsidered was denied,
Mauyag Matanog brought the matter to Us on an original petition for
Certiorari, with Writ of Preliminary Injunction. In the petition it is
claimed that respondent judge in denying the petition for judicial
recount, in spite of his findings that serious irregularities attended
the preparation of the Election Return for Precinct No. 9 (Exh. K), and
the standing order of the suspension of the canvass issued by the
COMELEC, thru its duly authorized representatives, acted WITHOUT or in
EXCESS of his jurisdiction, or with GRAVE ABUSE of discretion, for
which there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.

The petition was given due course and respondent were required to
Answer. And upon the posting of P1,000.00 bond, a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction was issued, enjoining the respondents, their agents and
representatives from making a canvass of the election return from
Precinct No, 9 and from making any proclamation for the office of Mayor
of Marantao, Lanao del Sur.

In due time the Answer was presented, which alter the customary
admissions and denials, interposed affirmative defenses destined to
show that no irregularity was committed in the preparation of the
election return in question. The cases were heard in argument. On June
8, 1964, this Court dismissed the petition in a minute resolution,
without prejudice to the writing of an extended opinion, which is the
present one.

The facts and circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, do not
warrant the remedy of Judicial Recount. That there might have been
irregularities attendant to the preparation of the only election return
in question, seem to be admitted by the learned trial court and the
representatives of the Commission on Elections. However, said
irregularities may not be proper causes for a judicial counting.

In the case of Municipal Board of Canvassers, et al. vs. Hon.
Benitez, et al., G.R. No. L-16319, June 30, 1960, this Court declared
that the Court has no jurisdiction to order the opening of the ballot
boxes for the purpose of recounting under sections 163 and 168 of the
Rev. Election Code, based upon the discrepancy between the election
return and the certificate given to the watcher, under the doctrine of
the Parlade and Samson cases—G.R. No. L-16259, Dec. 29, 1959, and G.R.
No. L-16286, Jan. 30, 1960, respectively.

“Similar to the right of the election inspectors to
amend or correct their statements (election returns) in accordance with
Sec. 154 expressly mentioned in the preceding quotation is the right of
the candidates affected (proper parties) to go to the court in ense of
discrepancies pursuant to Sees. 163 and 168 above quoted. Consequently,
paragraph (k) of the rules and regulations issued by the Commission on
Elections is equally applicable to the case at bar where two
contradictory statements (election re(urng) were presented to the boa
id of canvassers, for which reason and for the purpose of Riving the
parties opportunity to co to court, the Board was specifically
instructed not to proclaim the mayor-elect”. (Salcedo, Jr. vs. Com. on
Elections, et al., 108 Phil,, 1184).

This Court in the case of Lim vs. Hon. E. Maglanoc & Francia, G.R. No. L-16566, Aug. 31, 1961, held:

“* * * In the case of Jose Parlade, et al vs. Judges
Perfecto Quicho and Mateo Alcasid, et al., G.R. No. L-16259, Dec. 29,
1959. We have stated:

‘Secs. 163 and 168
refer to differences between the statement (before the Board of
Canvassers for purposes of canvassing) and another copy or other
authentic copies thereof. What is such statement? Obviously, the
statement of election returns presented by the Provincial Treasurer (in
case of Provincial Board of Canvassers) and the Municipal Treasurer (in
case of municipal board of canvassers). Those two sections 163 and 168
should be read together.’

Respondent,
therefore, finally contends that inasmuch as said sections authorize
the Court to order the opening of the ballot box when there are
contradictions among the different copies of the same election return;
and the discrepancy in this precinct consisted merely in the difference
in the reported result, as to the number of votes received by the
petitioner, between the votes expressed in words and that expressed in
figures, the general rule of statutory construction to the effect that
the number of words must prevail over that in figures, must perforce be
applied. It would seem, however, that what we have suggested in the
Parlade case (supra), would help in our efforts to find a solution. It
was also there stated—’

‘* * * In this
connection, it is best to emphasize that the whole theory of the
election law rests on the prima facie presumption of honesty and
integrity of the board of inspectors. On this presumption, it directs
the board of canvassers to make the proclamation on the basis of such
reports (‘statements the law calls them’ as the inspectors shall make.
Aware, however, of the failings of human nature and foreseeing the
possibility of error; the Legislature has permitted the correction by
the court in clear cases at the request of the inspectors themselves
(sec. 154 and the Benitez and Sison cases, supra). Also where there are
conflict between one copy thereof (or in the statement itself, words
contradicting figures), there arises ex necessitate the need of
finding, which statement or number should be followed by the Board. So
the law gives the Court of First Instance power to recount the votes
cast in the precinct.”

“* * *. 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 in 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″ (Villacarlos vs, Hon. Jimenez, et al, et al, G.R.
No. L-16437, Dec. 21, 1962).

In the case of Natano vs. Hon. Moya, et al.,G.R. No.
L-16869, March 30, 1968, where a clear mistake was shown and admitted
by the entire precinct Board of Inspectors, this Court denied the writ
of certiorari.

“Considering that the proclamation of the herein
petitioners as the sixth elected councilor of the municipality of Del
Gallego, Camarines Sur, is disputed, respondent Silverio Balanlayos
contending that the former virus not proclaimed as such, and this
contention seems to find support in Resolution No. 1 pulsed or adopted
by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on 16 November 1950 which in turn
is supported by the certification signed and issued on 13 November
1951) by the precinct board of inspectors concerned, and there being a
discrepancy between the election return where the name of the
respondent Ralanlayos and the number of votes he has obtained in the
precinct referred to at such election were omitted or left out ind the
report of the precint board of inspectors submitted to the municipal
treasurer of Del Gallego, the controversy comes under the provisions of
section 168 in connection with section 163 of the Revised Election Code
and not under the provisions of section 174 of the same Code.”

In the case at bar, the alleged discrepancies appear in Annex B of
the petition, supposedly certificate of votes given to a watcher of
petitioner. The other document purporting to show a discrepancy in the
election return in question is Annex E, a certificate executed by Lt.
Nemecio Decena, Ex-0 of the 75th PC Company. These documents are not
those which can be considered authentic copies of the elections return,
and election return Exh. K. in question is not within the purview of
the abovecited authorities. It becomes obvious, therefore, that the
ruling of the respondent Court, appealed from, is correct, and that the
remedy of petitioner is not for a Judicial Recount but something else,
which he is free to pursue.

Moreover, having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case,
the actuations of the respondent Judge, in the exercise of such
jurisdiction, erroneous conclusions of either fact or law are not
correctible by certiorari. Even if We assume, that certiorari would be
the adequate remedy, there is no showing that respondent Judge acted
without or in excess of his jurisdiction and/or with grave or
capricious abuse of discretion, in rendering the judgment, subject of
the instant proceedings.

Premises considered, the petition is hereby dismissed without costs.

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