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…

Dizon versus Tizon

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition brought by Pedro Dizon against Judge Tito Tizon of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Bataan, and his two rival candidates for governor, Guillermo Arcenas and Medina Lacson de Leon. Dizon asked the courts below for a judicial recount of votes in several precincts and, when he was refused, came to the Supreme Court to compel a recount and to stop the canvass and proclamation. The case matters because it fixes two rules every election lawyer must know: when a discrepancy in election returns justifies a judicial recount, and why all requests for recount must be brought in a single proceeding rather than in installments.

Procedural History

Dizon filed three separate petitions for judicial recount before the Court of First Instance of Bataan. The trial court dismissed the first case on the merits after trial, in a decision dated January 12, 1968. It dismissed the other two cases on a motion to dismiss filed by the respondents, in an order dated January 15, 1968, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and splitting of a single cause of action. Dizon then came directly to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, mandamus and or prohibition with preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition and issued a restraining order stopping the provincial board of canvassers from resuming the canvass and from proclaiming a winner. Because of that order, Dizon, as incumbent governor, continued to hold the position while the case was pending.

Facts

In the elections of November 14, 1967, three candidates ran for governor of Bataan: Pedro Dizon, Guillermo Arcenas, and Medina Lacson de Leon. Dizon filed three petitions for judicial recount. The first covered precinct 5 of Balanga and precinct 10 of Hermosa. The second covered precinct 9 of Abucay and precinct 31 of Balanga. The third covered precinct 1 of Abucay.

In precinct 5 of Balanga, the copies of the return for the municipal treasurer and the provincial treasurer showed Arcenas with 68 votes, while the copy for the Commission on Elections showed 67 votes. In precinct 10 of Hermosa, three official copies showed Arcenas with 132 votes in both words and figures, with visible erasures, while the advance municipal treasurer's copy showed 122 votes. Dizon claimed that if the entries were read as 68 and 132, Arcenas would win by a plurality of 3 votes, but if read as 67 and 122, Dizon would win by 8 votes. The materiality of the differences was not disputed.

The trial court found that the erasures were mere corrections of clerical errors made by the election inspectors, that the three official copies were clear and legible and tallied with each other and with the tally board, and that the supervisor of the Commission on Elections had instructed the board of canvassers to use the official copies. As to the Abucay and Balanga precincts, the returns had already been canvassed on December 5 and 6, 1967, without any question being raised, and the petitions covering them were filed only later, on December 27, 1967 and January 8, 1968.

Issues

• Whether or not the discrepancies in the election returns for precinct 5 of Balanga and precinct 10 of Hermosa were such as to justify a judicial recount.
• Whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to order a recount of returns that had already been canvassed by the provincial board of canvassers without any question being raised at the time.
• Whether or not the filing of several separate petitions for judicial recount constituted splitting of a single cause of action.

Applicable Provisions

Section 163 of the Revised Election Code governs judicial recounts and provides:

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.

This is the very provision the Court construes: the discrepancy must appear to the board during the canvass and must be material enough to affect the result.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no recount was warranted. As to precinct 5 of Balanga, the discrepancy was only one vote, which could not materially affect the result. As to precinct 10 of Hermosa, the advance municipal treasurer's copy showing 122 votes is not one of the copies that can be the basis of a recount, and the three official copies tallied with each other and with the tally board. The erasures were mere clerical corrections, not tampering. The Court quoted the trial court's finding that the erasures were merely corrections to rectify an erroneous entry attributable to clerical error, and that no contradictory statements existed to warrant a recount.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the petitions covering the Abucay and Balanga precincts. Under Section 163, the discrepancy must be brought to the attention of the board in the process of the canvass. That was done only for the returns in the first case, where the board even suspended the canvass to allow Dizon to go to court. For the other returns, the canvass had long been terminated before the petitions were filed.

On the third issue, the Court held that a judicial recount under Section 163, no matter how many precincts are involved, constitutes only one cause of action, since the ground is the same and so is the relief. The proceeding is summary in character and designed to settle the controversy without unnecessary delay so that the winning candidate may be identified and proclaimed. That objective would be nullified if a petitioner were allowed to seek redress piecemeal, asking for a recount of one precinct now and another next week. Public policy against splitting causes of action forbids such a course.

Doctrine

A judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code requires that the discrepancy in the copies of the election returns be material, that is, sufficient to affect the result of the election. The discrepancy must be brought to the attention of the provincial board of canvassers during the canvass; once the canvass of a return is terminated without objection, a later petition for recount as to that return comes too late. Only official copies of the returns may serve as the basis of a recount, not the advance municipal treasurer's copy. Finally, a judicial recount, regardless of the number of precincts involved, constitutes a single cause of action, and filing separate petitions for each precinct is impermissible splitting of a cause of action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, lifted the restraining order, and ordered Dizon to pay the costs, leaving the dismissal of all three recount cases standing.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a judicial recount is a single cause of action that must be raised before the board during the canvass, on a discrepancy material enough to change the result. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of Section 163 and the rule against splitting a cause of action in election recounts.