G.R. No. L-28511. August 22, 1968
ARTURO SERIÑA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BUKIDNON, ERNESTO VILLALON, RESPONDENTS.
FERNANDO, J.:
In this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and mandamus, filed on January 12, 1968, Arturo
Seriña, then Municipal Mayor of Kibawe, Bukidnon, and a candidate for
reelection to the same position in the November 14, 1967 election, prayed for
the setting aside of an order of the
respondent Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, the Hon. Abundio Z.
Arrieta presiding, dated December 14, 1967,
denying his motion to permit the Municipal Treasurer to open the ballot box of Precinct No. 20 of Kibawe,
Bukidnon for the sole purpose of retrieving the ballot box copy therein
contained, as well as another order
of respondent court of December 19, 1967, directing the Municipal Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvass of the votes in such precinct without
requiring such Board of Inspectors to fill up omissions of certain data
in both the Commission of Elections as well as the Municipal Treasurer’s
copies of election returns as required by
Section 162 of the Revised Election Code.
It was alleged in the petition:
“As the Municipal Board of Canvassers
of Kibawe, Bukidnon were about
to convene to canvass the results of the elections for the different
municipal offices of Kibawe, Bukidnon, petitioner received a report that the
election returns of Precinct No. 20 of Kibawe was tampered with, altered and
falsified particularly the copies thereof which correspond to the Provincial
Treasurer, Municipal Treasurer and the Commission on Elections. Thereupon, Petitioner filed with respondent
Court a petition for the judicial recount of the ballots in Precinct No. 20 of
Kibawe.”[1]
More particularly, it was noted that according to the copy
for the Commission on Elections, the other respondent, Ernesto Villalon,
likewise a candidate for municipal mayor,
received 525 votes while in the copy for the Municipal Treasurer, the
number of votes appearing opposite his name is 2,525.[2]
Moreover, on both “the Comelec’s and Municipal Treasurer’s copies of the
election returns, the spaces on Page 1
thereof, regarding the number of voters registered, number of voters who
actually voted, number of
ballots found In the compartment for valid ballots and others, have not been
filled up nor accomplished by the Board of Inspectors of said Precinct No. 20;
* * *.”[3]
As noted earlier, respondent court denied petitioner’s urgent
motion to permit Municipal Treasurer of Kibawe, Bukidnon to retrieve election
returns contained in the ballot box of Precinct No. 20 and granted a motion of respondent Villalon to proceed with the canvass of votes in such precinct without first
requiring the Board of Inspectors to fill
up such omissions complained of.[4] Hence
this petition.
This Court, in a resolution of
January 16, 1968, gave due course to
the above petition with a temporary restraining order, respondents being
required to file not later than January 23, 1968, an answer. The hearing
was set on January 25, 1968. There was an urgent motion, filed by respondent Villalon, for an extension of
10 days within which to file the answer and the postponement to a later
date of the oral argument. This Court granted such extension of 10 days to file the answer, but denied the request for postponement of
the hearing, petitioner being given
10 days to submit a memorandum, the same period being granted respondents
within which to submit a reply memorandum, if they so desire.
An answer, dated February 2,
1968, was filed by respondent Villalon,
where he admitted some of the allegations contained in the petition, but stated “that on January
17, 1968, the ballot box in question (for Precinct No. 20) was opened in
the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon,
before the respondent Presiding Judge and the lawyers and representatives of both parties, and on January 19, 1968, when the election returns in question was
retrieved inside the ballot box for
Precinct No. 20, a comparison was made with the two (2) other authentic copies of the election returns, namely, The
Municipal Treasurer’s Copy and the Commission
on Elections Copy as mentioned above,
and the same showed a [uniformity of votes], to wit: FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE, (525) votes, in words and figures, for your respondent Villalon; *
* *.”[5] After noting that
in a petition
for a judicial recount, there is no necessity for
directing the Municipal board of Canvassers to observe and comply with Section 150 of the Revised Election
Code as to the alleged omissions, respondent Villalon prayed for the
dismissal of the petition “for the reason that the issues raised in the
present petition had already been rendered
moot and academic, and for utter lack of merit * * *.”[6]
Subsequently, in a pleading
dated February 7, 1968 and filed with this Court the next day,
respondent Villalon filed a motion to dismiss, reiterating that the issues
raised in this petition had become moot and
academic. It was alleged anew that even before the filing of the petition, the act sought to be enjoined and
set aside had already been done.[7]
In the memorandum for
petitioner, filed on February 17, 1968, there was an admission
“that the respondent Court has in fact reconsidered its order and had authorized the opening of the ballot box for
the sole purpose of retrieving the ballot box copy of the election returns,
Petitioner agrees with respondent Villalon that the issue as to the propriety
of its earlier order dated December 5, 1967 * * *has become academic and
moot.”[8] He was opposed to the dismissal of the petition, however, as according to him, there
is another issue still to be resolved
centering “on the question as to whether the respondent Court
correctly considered that the matter of the omitted information in the
election return as to the total number of registered voters, the total number
of ballots found in the compartment for valid ballots and others are more ‘Clerical Omissions’ that may be disregarded or rather are ‘Substantial, Material and Requisite Omissions’ which must first be completed by the Board of Inspecters before the Municipal Board of Canvassers can proceed to the canvass of the votes * *
*.”[9]
This Court, in a resolution of March 7, 1968, denied the motion to dismiss of
respondent VillaIon and granted
respondents a period of
10 days from notice within which to
submit the reply memorandum. Then
came a motion for reconsideration,
dated April 18, 1968, wherein it was
stated: “1. The main petition in the Court below which is a petition for
judicial recounting of the votes in precinct No. 20 of Kibawe, Bukidnon, has already been dismissed by the Lower Court.
* * *; and 2. Since the principal petition has already been dismissed it follows, as a
legal and logical consequence that the other
relief sought, namely, that an order be issued to comply with the resolution of the Commission on Elections requiring
the observance of Section 162 of the Revised Election Code first require
the Board of Inspectors to fill up or comply the requisite information omitted in the election returns, be denied as this is merely ancilliary to the principal petition for judicial recount as adverted to above, has already
been dismissed by the Court
below.”[10] The prayer
of the motion for reconsideration was for the dismissal of the petition, there being a reiteration of the allegation that the issues had already been rendered moot and academic. While a copy of the aforesaid motion for
reconsideration was served on the counsel for petitioners, no pleading denying that there was indeed
such a definitive dismissal had ever
been filed by petitioner.
There is therefore no occasion for the coming into
play of the supervisory power of this Court over inferior tribunals, the matter
having been rendered moot and academic. It is not amiss to state, however,
that respondent court, in the exercise
of its limited jurisdiction under either
Section 163 or 168 of the Revised Election Code as the case may be, should dispose of the matter with
promptness and dispatch. That would assure that
the proclamation would not be unduly
delayed. It is equally relevant to state
that under such circumstances there should
not be on the part of the judiciary timidity and hesitancy in lending
its approval to pleas from any party before it, if thereby the true and honest result of the
elections could be elicited. That would enable the provincial
or municipal board of canvassers to discharge its function in the
shortest possible time and with the utmost degree of accuracy.
Inferior tribunals must likewise bear in mind that where the provisions of the
Election Code as in Sections 142 and 162 are couched in mandatory
form the power does not exist for any court to distinguish between material and
immaterial omissions. What the
law decrees must be obeyed. It is
as peremptory and as simple as that.
WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and mandamus
is dismissed. Without pronouncement as
to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.
[1]
Petition, paragraphs 5 and 6.
[2]
Ibid, paragraphs 7 and 8.
[3]
Ibid, paragraph 9.
[4]
Ibid, paragraphs 14 and 15.
[5]
Answer, paragraph 4.
[6]
Ibid, prayer.
[7]
Motion to Dismiss, paragraph 3.
[8]
Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 5.
[9]
Ibid, p. 5.
[10]
Motion for reconsideration for respondent Villalon, p. 1.