ALFREDO BER PALARCA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ABUNDIO ARRIETA, PEDRO G. PEREZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for a writ of certiorari
to annul the order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, in its Special Case No. 2280, dismissing
the petitioner’s petition for judicial recount of the election returns for the
position of lieutenant-governor in the 1963 elections, coming from Precincts
Nos. 9, 14, 18, 19 and 25 of Mambajao, Camiguin Subprovince. It is
alleged that if the said order were annulled, the result of the election would
change in favor of the petitioner.

Petitioner
Alfredo Ber. Palarca and respondent Jose P. Neri were candidates of the Nacionalista Party-Pelaez Loyalist
Coalition and of the Liberal Party, respectively, for lieutenant-governor of
Camiguin Subprovince in the elections held on
12 November
1963.

During the canvass of the
election returns by the provincial board of canvassers, the representative of
the Nacionalista Party, discovering what he believed
to be indubitable discrepancies in the copies of the returns, moved the board to
petition for a judicial recount. The board refused, whereupon the petitioner
filed before the respondent court a petition for judicial recount. The court, on
29 November
1963,
enjoined, by a writ of preliminary injunction, the members of the provincial
board of canvassers from proclaiming Jose P. Neri as
the lieutenant-governor-elect, until otherwise directed by the
court.

On 9
December 1963, the respondent court issued the
order that is sought to be annulled, which, as aforesaid, dismissed the petition
with respect to the afore-enumerated precincts but ordered a recount with
respect to Precinct No. 16. The questioned order is predicated on the
examination by the respondent court of the election returns involved, wherein it
found the following:

“In Precinct No. 9, there is no
contradiction or conflict whatsoever in the copies submitted to the Provincial
Treasurer and the municipal treasurer as well as those found in the ballot box.
Petitioner Alfredo Palarca is credited in all those
copies with ‘thirty-two’ votes, in words and figures, and Neri with ‘seventy-seven’ votes also in words and figures.
The only discrepancy noted is that found in the copy of the Nacionalista Party wherein candidate Jose P. Neri has been credited with ‘seventy’ votes in words and
figures. The Court found, however, some erasures after the word ‘ seventy’ and
also after the figures ’70’ written in said copy.

“In Precinct No. 14, the Court
also found no conflict or contradiction in all the four copies, namely, those of
the Provincial Treasurer, the municipal treasurer, the ballot box and the Nacionalista Party. The only discrepancy, if at all, is that
found in the superimposition of the figure ‘1’ over the figure ‘6’ in the 81
votes accredited to candidate Alfredo Palarca in the
copies of the Provincial Treasurer and the municipal treasurer, which apparently
shows that the Board of Inspectors corrected the original entry from ’86’ to
’81’ as they bear the Initials of the person who wrote the entries on said
copies.

“In Precinct No. 16, the Court
found the votes credited to candidate Alfredo Palarca
written very clearly in words and figures as ‘Fifty-Six’ in the copy of the
statement submitted to the municipal treasurer, whereas, in the copy sent to the
Provincial Treasurer, that deposited in the ballot box and that given to the
Nacionalista Party, the votes for said candidate
written in words may be read either as ‘Fifty-Six’, ‘Fixty-Six’, ‘Finty-Six’ or
‘Sixty-Six’ depending upon the appreciation of the first capital letter and the
third small letter in the hyphenated word.

“In Precinct No. 18, the Court
found no conflict or contradiction in the copies of the municipal treasurer, the
Provincial Treasurer and in the ballot box. The only discrepancy noted by the
Court is in the copy of the Nacionalista Party wherein
candidate Palarca was credited with ‘ 67′ votes in
words instead of ’47’ in words appearing in the three other copies
above-mentioned. In the said copy, however, of the Nacionalista Party, the figures representing the votes of
the same candidate Alfredo Palarca is clearly written
as ’47’.

“In Precinct No. 19, the Court
found no contradiction in the copies of the Provincial Treasurer, the municipal
treasurer and in the ballot box, as candidate Jose P. Neri was credited in all copies with ‘One Hundred
Twenty-Five’ votes in words and figures and candidate Alfredo Palarca with “Forty-Eight’ votes in words and figures. In
the Nacionalista Party’s copy, however, candidate Jose
P. Neri appear credited with
‘One Hundred Twenty’ in words and ‘125’ in figures.

“In Precinct No. 25, the copy of
the election statement submitted to the provincial treasurer, that deposited in
the ballot box and that of the Nacionalista Party show
no contradiction or conflict, and show candidate Alfredo Palarca to have been credited with ‘Fifty-One’ votes in
words and figures and Jose Neri with ‘Forty-Nine’
votes also clearly written in words and
figures.”

From the foregoing findings, it
is observed that the copies of the election returns for Precincts Nos. 9, 14,
18, 19 and 25 of the provincial treasurer, of the municipal treasurer and the
one deposited in the ballot box (except for the initialed corrections pertaining
to Precinct No. 14) all tallied with one another; and that the only copy that
did not tally with the aforesaid three (3) copies, with respect to these
precincts, was the copy of the Nacionalista
Party.

The issue, therefore, is whether
or not the copy or statement of the election returns sent to the Nacionalista Party is one of those contemplated by Section
163 of the Revised Election Code, which provides:

“When
statements of a precinct are contradictory. -In case it appears to the
provincial board of canvassers that another copy or other authentic copies of
the statement from an election precinct submitted to the board give to a
candidate a different number of votes and the difference affects the result of
the election, the Court of First Instance of the province, upon motion of the
board or of any candidate affected, may proceed to recount the votes cast in the
precinct for the sole purpose of determining which is the true statement or
which is the true result of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for the
office in question. Notice of such proceeding shall be given to all candidates
affected.”

The lower court, in its order of
9 December
1963,
resolved the issue in the negative.

On 13
December 1963, petitioner Palarca filed the present petition with this Court, praying
for the nullification of the lower court’s dismissal order and an ex-parte
preliminary injunction to restrain the respondent court from lifting the
preliminary injunction that it had previously issued against the proclamation of
candidate Neri. This Court issued the writ, as prayed
for, under bond in the amount of P2,000.00

It is urged by petitioner Palarca that the number of copies of election returns to be
prepared by the Board of Election Inspectors prior to 1961 were only four in
accordance with Section 150 of the election code; that the Commission on
Elections, in its resolution of 6 June 1961 (2 February 1961, according to
respondent Neri), increased the number of copies from
four to six and, in its resolution of 18 June 1962 (Resolution No. 414 of 14
July 1963, according to respondent Neri), again
increased the number of copies from six to seven; that the manner of preparation
of the returns, however, remained unchanged, and, therefore, any of these
additional three (3) copies should be understood as “another copy or other
authentic copies of the statement x x x ” for purposes of judicial recount under Section 163,
these copies being either originals or duplicate
originals.

The lower court correctly ruled
that the copy of the Nacionalista Party is not one of
those contemplated by Section 163, and rightly feared that a contrary ruling
would set a widespread suspension of the proclamation of the results of an
election as the copies of the statements given to the political parties .are
susceptible of tampering to suit their partisan objectives. The judgment of the
court below is in conformity with this Court’s doctrine in Acuña vs. Golez, L-25399,
January 27,
1966,
wherein it was held that:

“Upon mature consideration of the
pros and cons of the aforementioned question, the Court is of the considered
opinion that the same must be decided in the negative, for the simple reason
that, in using the aforementioned phrase the framers of the Revised Election
Code evidently had in mind the four (4) copies mentioned in Section
150 thereof and intended, one for the ballot box, another for the municipal
treasurer, still another for the provincial treasurer and the last for the
Commission on Elections. In other words, the lawmakers could not have referred
to any other copies, for no such copies were prescribed in the
Code.

Indeed, since Provincial Board
v. Barot, G. R. No. L-3483 (December 16, 1949), we have
consistently adhered to the view that Section 163 of the Revised Election Code
should be construed restrictlvely (Parlade v. Quicho, L-16259,
December 29, 1959; Samson v. Estenzo, L-16268, January
30, 1960; Laws in v. Escalona, L-22540, July 31,
1964), because of the special nature of the authority conferred therein and
because otherwise that authority could be so used as to delay the proclamation
of the winning candidate beyond the date set for the beginning of the term of
the office involved. The necessity of avoiding this contingency becomes apparent
when we consider that the effect of said delay is, in the case of national
offices, for which there is no hold over, to leave the office without any
incumbent, and, in the case of local offices, whose incumbents may hold over, to
often permit the defeated candidate to unduly extend his tenure, at the expense
of the true choice of the electorate.”

For the foregoing reasons, the
writ is denied and the petition dismissed, The writ of
preliminary injunction issued by this Court on 16
December 1963 is hereby lifted. Costs against petitioner Alfredo Ber. Palarca.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.

Barrera, J., on leave.