G.R. No. L-28550 to L-28552. March 27, 1968
GOV. PEDRO R. DIZON, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TITO V. TIZON, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATAAN; THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BATAAN; GUILLERMO ARCENAS; AND MED…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
These three cases, docketed here under G.R. Nos. L-28550 to
L-28552, inclusive, have
their origin in Cases Nos. 80, 83 and 84, respectively, of the Court of
First Instance of Bataan.
In the elections of November
14, 1967 three candidates ran for the office of Governor in said
province: Pedro R. Dizon,
petitioner herein; Guillermo Arcenas and Mrs. Medina
Lacson de Leon, the last two now respondents.
Case No. 80 was a petition filed by Dizon on December 21, 1967 for
a judicial recount of votes in precinct No. 5 of Balanga
and precinct No. 10 of Hermosa; Case No. 83 was a similar petition filed by Dizon on December 27, 1967, with respect to the votes in
precinct No. 9 of Abucay and precinct No. 31 of Balanga; and Case No.
84 was also a petition of the same nature with respect to precinct No. 1 of Abucay. After trial the court a quo
dismissed Case No. 80 in its decision of January 12, 1968; Cases Nos. 83 and 84 met the same fate, but merely on a motion to dismiss filed by the two respondents and
resolved in an order dated January 15, 1968. The
petitions before us are for certiorari, mandamus and/or prohibition, with
preliminary injunction. In essence the
petitioner seeks a reversal of the actuations of the court below and an order
for the judicial recount of the votes cast for the office of Governor in the
precincts above referred to and the inclusion of the votes as thus recounted in
the canvass to be made.
We gave due course to the
petition and issued a restraining order to stop the respondents, particularly
the provincial board of canvassers of Bataan, from
resuming the canvass of the returns for the contested office and from making the corresponding proclamation of the
winning candidate. As a result of the
restraining order the petitioner here, as incumbent Governor, continues to hold
the position.
In case No. 80, judicial
recount is sought in view of certain alleged discrepancies in the various
copies of the election returns in precincts No. 5 of Balanga
and No. 10 of Hermosa. With respect to
precinct No. 5 of Balanga, the discrepancy alleged in
the petition and found by the trial court is that while in the copies of the return for the municipal
treasurer and the provincial treasurer Arcenas
appears to have obtained 68 votes, in the copy for the Commission on Elections
he appears to have obtained 6,7 votes. The court also noted that the first two
copies aforesaid contain erasures and superimpositions, which it said were made
by the election inspectors to correct erroneous entries, but that the entries
in the third copy, that is, in the one for the Commission on Elections, are
clear and legible. It is this third copy
that the supervisor of the Commission on Elections in Bataan instructed the board of canvassers to use
once the injunction issued by the lower court was lifted.
Since the discrepancy
between the different copies of the return consists of only one (1) vote and
would not materially affect the result of the election for the office of
Governor, the lower court held that a judicial recount was not in order. This conclusion is correct, as far as it goes, for sander Section 163 of
the Revised Election Code the difference must really be such as to affect the result of the election
in order to justify a judicial recount.
However, the petitioner
has asked for a recount not only in precinct No. 5 of Balanga
but also in precinct No. 10 of Hermosa, and alleges in effect that a recount in
these two precincts together could change the result of the election. In precinct No. 10 of Hermosa the petitioner
points out the following discrepancy: in
the copies of the return for the municipal treasurer, the provincial treasurer
and the Commission on Elections, respondent Arcenas
is credited with 132 votes, both in words and figures, although there are visible erasures in said entries,
while in the “advance municipal treasurer’s copy” he is credited with
122 votes, both in words and figures, also with erasures.
It
is
alleged in the petition that if the questioned entries for respondent Arcenas are read as 68 votes in precinct No. 5 of Balanga and 132 votes in precinct No. 10 of Hermosa, he
would win by a plurality of 3 votes over petitioner Dizon,
but if said entries are read as 67 and 122 votes, respectively, the petitioner
would win by 8 votes. There is no
dispute as to the materiality of the differences referred to. The issue is whether or not these
differences, particularly in precinct No. 10 of Hermosa, are such as to justify a
judicial recount under the law.
The
findings of the trial court are as follows:
“Coming now to the returns for precinct 10 of Hermosa: A perusal of the copy of the return for the
Municipal Treasurer (Exhibit R-1-Court); copy for the Provincial Treasurer,
Exhibit W-1-Court; copy for the Commission en Elections, Exhibit Y-1-Court,
shows the entries clearly written in words that respondent Guillermo Arcenas obtained “one hundred thirty-two” votes;
Pedro R. Dixon obtained “twenty-six” votes; and Medina Lacson de Leon obtained “two ” votes. In figures, the corresponding votes clearly
and legibly read “132”, “26” and
“2”, respectively, for the three candidates. In these three copies of the
returns for Precinct 10 of Hermosa, the words “thirty-two” written
after the words “one hundred” opposite the name of candidate
Guillermo Arcenas appear to have been erased and
corrected; nevertheless, the correction, which is in the same handwriting is
clear and legible, so that the number of votes obtained by Guillermo Arcenas is clearly recorded as “one hundred thirty-two”.
This observation of the Court was affirmed by Atty. Arturo Lopez,
supervisor of the Commission on Elections, when he concluded “that all
the erasures were done by members of the Board of Inspectors merely to rectify
an error because the handwriting in the three (3) copies are very similar. “ (See p. 4, Minutes of the Board of Canvassers, Annex B to Answer of respondent
Arcenas). Atty. Lopez instructed the
provincial board of canvassers to use the copy of the return for the Provincial
Treasurer (Exhibit W-1-Court) as
“the basis of the canvass because the three (3) copies are all authentic
copies, they are all genuine.” Id., p. 5).”
“From this circumstance, the Court finds and so concludes that
the erasures complained of by petitioner in the entries on the number of votes
obtained by the candidates for the office of governor in the returns for
Precinct 10 of Hermosa are merely corrections to rectify an erroneous entry,
which could be attributed to clerical error.
The discrepancy was not attributed to tamper or obvious fraudulent
practices. Consequently, the Court finds
no contradictory statements in the returns for Precinct 10 of Hermosa to
warrant a judicial recount of the votes recorded therein.”
The conclusion thus
reached by the trial court is not without strong basis both in law and in
fact. In law, because the advance
municipal treasurer’s copy of the return, which shows a different entry (122 votes) from that in the three other copies (132 votes) – the official copy for
the municipal treasurer and the copies for the provincial treasurer and the Commission on Elections – is not one of the copies
which can be the basis of a recount (Acuña Golez, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. Anno.
32; Palarca vs. Arleta, G.R. No.
L-22224, Oct. 24, 1966). And in fact, because the three official
copies not only tally with each other but also with the tally board, which was
produced before the trial court. A photostat of this tally board is annexed to the answer of
respondent Arcenas, and his allegation that the
entries therein coincide with the figures appearing in those official copies of
the returns, particularly insofar as the
votes for Arcenas are concerned, has not been denied by the petitioner.
It is our opinion,
therefore, that the trial court committed no error in denying a recount with respect to precinct 5 of Balanga
and precinct 10 of Hermosa, and in dismissing Case No. 80 accordingly.
Going now to Cases Nos.
83 and 84, the lower court dismissed the petitions for recount upon motion by
the respondents on two grounds: (1) lack
of jurisdiction and (2) splitting of a single cause of action.
In connection with the
first ground it appears that the election returns for Abucay and for Balanga were
canvassed by the provincial board of canvassers on December 5 and 6,
respectively. No question was then
raised by the petitioner or by anyone acting for him in connection with any one of those returns. Section 163 of the Revised Election Code
authorizes a judicial recount, upon motion of the board or of any candidate affected,
“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,” In other words the
discrepancy must be brought to the attention of the board in the process of the canvass. This was done with respect to the returns
subject of Case No. 80. In fact the
board had to suspend the canvass in order to allow the petitioner to go to
court, as he did; but with respect to the returns subject of Cases Nos. 83 and
84, the canvass had long been terminated when he filed his petitions therein on
December 27, 1967 and January 8, 1968, respectively.
Concerning the second
basis of the order of dismissal, we
really see no justifiable reason why several distinct petitions should be
filed. Nor has the petitioner given
any. A judicial recount under Section
163 of the Revised Election Code, no matter how many precincts may be involved,
constitutes only one cause of action:
the ground is the same and so is the relief which the court may grant in all of
them. The proceeding envisioned by the
law is more or less summary in character and is designed to settle the
causative controversy without unnecessary delay so that the winning candidate
may be identified and duly proclaimed.
This objective of the law would be nullified if a petitioner is
permitted to seek his redress piecemeal, or in installments – asking for a
recount now with respect to one precinct, next week with respect to another
precinct, and so on successively as long as there is yet no
proclamation. Public policy, which is
behind the rule against splitting causes of action, forbids such a course.
We are of the opinion that the respondent court did not commit a
grave abuse of discretion or so neglected a duty enjoined by law as to justify
the issuance of the writs prayed for.
The petition is therefore dismissed and the restrain order heretofore
issued is lifted, with costs.
Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., on official leave.