ALEJANDRO REYES, PETITIONER, VS. ANATALIO REYES, AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.

In this petition for certiorari
with a plea for preliminary injunction, petitioner, the official candidate of
the Nacionalista Party for mayor of Magallanes, Cavite, in the
election held on November 14, 1967, seeks to nullify the resolution of respondent
Commission on Elections of December 29, 1967,^[1]
granting a motion for the reconsideration of its previous resolution of
December 6, 1967, to annul the proclamation of the other respondent, Anatalio Reyes, the candidate of the Liberal Party for the
mayoralty of said municipality.

The background facts, as set forth in the aforesaid resolution of
respondent Commission on Elections of December 29, 1967, follow: “Upon
petition of mayoralty candidate Alejandro Reyes in the November 14, 1967
election in Magallanes, Cavite,
filed on December 2, 1967, wherein it was alleged that a proclamation for the
office of mayor in Magallanes, Cavite,
was made on December 2, 1967, declaring Anatalio
Reyes as the mayor elect based on a canvass which was incomplete because of the
pending questions as to the correctness of the canvass of the returns in Precincts
Nos. 7 and 12, the Commission declared said canvass and proclamation null and
void.” Then came this portion of the resolution:
“Thereafter, this motion for reconsideration of said resolution of the
Commission of December 6, 1967,
was filed on the ground that the proclamation was legal, being made by a duly
constituted board of canvassers and based upon complete and unfalsified
election returns.  And furthermore, it is
alleged that there is now pending in the Court of First Instance of Cavite an election protest filed by Alejandro Reyes
involving the same election.”

It was then noted by respondent Commission in the aforesaid
resolution “that the petition filed by Alejandro Reyes with the Commission
for the annulment of the proclamation of Anatalio
Reyes as elected mayor was on December
2, 1967, and that on December
4, 1967, an election protest was filed by Alejandro Reyes with the
Court of First Instance of Cavite.  And it appears in the copy of the petition of
election protest attached to the records of this case, that petitioner
Alejandro Reyes did not mention in his said petition of election protest
anything about the pending case with the Commission; and at the same time said
petitioner Alejandro did not also inform the Commission about the election
protest he filed with the Court of First Instance involving the same case.  So that the Commission annulled the
proclamation of Anatalio Reyes on December 6, 1967, two days after the
election protest was filed with the Court of First Instance, without any
knowledge or information of said election protest.”

After which, the law governing the matter in accordance with the
view of respondent Commission was set forth in this wise: “In view of the
aforesaid circumstances that there is now pending an election protest with the
Court of First Instance involving the same election as in the case with the
Commission, we are constrained to reconsider the Commission’s resolution of
December 6, 1967, annulling the proclamation of Anatalio
Reyes as mayor-elect of Magallanes, Cavite, and leave the disposition of all questions involved
in said election with the Court of First Instance in the election protest now
pending with said court, in line with the doctrine laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Vicente Acain v. Board of
Canvassers of Carmen, Agusan, et al., G. R. No.
L-16445, May 23, 1960, * *
*.”

The dispositive portion of the
Resolution of December 29, 1967, sought to be annulled, reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the Commission resolves to grant, as it hereby grants, the
motion for the reconsideration of the resolution of the Commission of December
6, 1967, annulling the proclamation of Anatalio Reyes
as mayor-elect of Magallanes, Cavite,
so that said proclamation is hereby reinstated as in full force and
effect.”

In the petition itself, there was the averment that the Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Magallanes, Cavite, “surreptitiously proceeded
with the canvassing on November 21,
1967, and thereafter, proclaimed the alleged winners * * * [among
them, respondent] Anatalio Reyes, * * *.”^[2]
Then came the allegation that petitioner, realizing that his action for
judicial recount previously filed with the Court of First Instance would be
unavailing, filed with respondent Commission on Elections a petition for the
annulment of the above canvassing and proclamation, which as noted was granted
on December 6, 1967.^[3]
After which came the admission that prior to such action being taken by
respondent Commission on Elections and the period for the filing of the protest
continuing to run in the meanwhile, petitioner “filed by registered mail
an election protest, * * *.”^[4]
The election protest, which was dated December 4, 1967, after stating that
petitioner was a candidate voted in the Office of the Municipal Mayor in the
election held in November 14, 1967, mentioned that protestee,
respondent Anatalio Reyes, “was proclaimed as
municipal mayor of the Municipality of Magallanes on
November 21, 1967, * * *.”^[5]
There can be no denying the truth of the finding of respondent Commission on
Elections then that when it annulled the proclamation of respondent Anatalio Reyes on December
6, 1967, an election protest had been previously filed with the
Court of First Instance by petitioner, without such knowledge or information on
its part that such was the case.

Thus the reliance on Acain v. Board of
Canvassers,^[6]
by respondent Commission in the challenged resolution cannot be legally
impugned.  The facts of Acain v. Board of Canvassers speak for themselves: “On
January 4, 1960, Malimit and Acain
instituted the present action of prohibition, mandamus and certiorari,
with preliminary injunction, to prevent the enforcement of said proclamation
and the assumption of office by Degamo and Palarca, and, after due hearing, to set aside said
proclamation, upon the ground that the same is null and void, because the
substitute members of the board of canvassers that made said proclamation were
not electors of Carmen belonging to the party of the suspended and substituted
members of said board, and because petitioners had requested a suspension of
the recanvass in order to secure from the proper
court a recounting of the votes in precincts Nos. 4, 5 and 6, but the request
was denied, thereby depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to have the
aforementioned recount.  Upon the filing
of the requisite indemnity bond, this Court issued on January 7, 1960, the writ of preliminary
injunction prayed for.  It appears,
however, that at the time of the filing of the petition, Degamo
and Palarca were not merely ‘threatening to assume
the office of mayor and vice-mayor respectively,’ as alleged in the petition,
but had already assumed said offices, which they held since January 1, 1960,
the date fixed by law therefor.  What is more, petitioner Malimit
had filed with the Court of First Instance of Agusan
a petition for a writ of quo warranto and an election
protest against Degamo on December 17 and 28, 1959,
respectively.  So, on March 11, 1960, Degamo
and Palarca moved for the immediate dissolution of
laid writ of preliminary injunction, alleging that, prior to the issuance
thereof, or on January 1, 1960,
said respondent had already assumed their offices as mayor and vice-mayor,
respectively, of Carmen, Agusan.”

On the above facts, it was the holding of this Court, through the
then Justice, now Chief Justice, Concepcion, that
petitioners were not entitled to the relief prayed for, for the reason among
others:

“5. Upon the filing of the aforementioned petition
for a writ of quo warranto and election protest on
December 17 and 28, 1959, respectively, the Court of First Instance of Agusan acquired exclusive authority to inquire into and
pass upon the title of Degamo and the validity of the
proclamation made by the municipal board of canvassers on December 7,
1959.  We cannot, upon the authority of
the petition, herein, filed on January 4, 1960, determine said questions
without encroaching upon the jurisdiction of said court of first instance,
which it is the duty of this body, as the highest Court of the land, not only
to respect, but, also, to uphold.”

The above decision speaks with undiminished authority.  There can be no more appropriate disposition
of a dispute of this character than a recognition of
the prior competence of a court of justice whenever an election protest has
been filed to determine who of the parties is entitled to the position in
controversy.  It would be conducive to
confusion and conflict in authority if under the circumstances, as above disclosed,
the Commission on Elections would still be considered as having the residual
power to interfere with a pending election protest.  Such an undesirable result should be avoided,
and the Acain holding if deferred to, as respondent
Commission on Elections did, would serve such purpose.

What was done by respondent Commission on Elections in its
resolution of December 29, 1967,
reconsidering its previous resolution of December 6, 1967, far from amounting then to a grave
abuse of discretion, was precisely in accordance with the applicable and controlling
legal principle.  This petition is therefore
bereft of any support in law.

WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.  With costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, and Angeles, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Annex J, Petition.

^[2] Paragraph 9, Petition.

^[3]
Paragraphs 10 and 13, Id.

^[4] Paragraph 12, Id.

^[5]
Paragraphs 2 and 3, Petition for Protest, Annex G, Petition.

^[6]
L-16445, May 23, 1960.