JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PASAY CITY AND PABLO P. CUNETA, RESPONDENTS.

In G.
R. No. L-34434, Jovito Claudio vs. Comelec, et als., a
petition for review of Comelec Resolution No. RR-105C
dated December 4, 1971, filed by petitioner Jovito Claudio, candidate for reelection
as Mayor of Pasay City against one of the opposing candidates, re­spondent Pablo Cuneta, and the Comelec and the
Board of Canvassers of said city, praying that Comelec
be order­ed to instruct respondent Board of Canvassers to ex­clude from the
canvass the election returns from cer­tain precincts in Pasay
City, on the ground that the same are “spurious” or “no
returns” at all, which if done, the petitioner would appear to be the
ostensible winner instead of respondent Cuneta, who
appears to have, on the basis of the votes reported in said returns, obtained the plurality of the votes over
petitioner; without prejudice to a more extended opinion, should t e necessity therefor arise, the Court renders judgment modifying the
questioned Comelec resolution, and respondent
Board of Canvassers is hereby ordered to order the completion and/or correction
of the returns mentioned hereunder, it appearing that the impugned election
returns for Precincts 1, 3, 5, 17, 18, 49, 63, 101, 103, 127, 130, 124,
138,141, 142, 151, 152, 176-A, 180, 185-A, 190-A, 192-A, 220, 232, 241, 247-A,
280 and 282, 116-A, 138, 188, 144-A, 154, 209 and 272, and 153, are incomplete or, plainly erroneous, as
found by Comelec, as to the data or number of voters
and ballots, and it is the plain duty of the Board of Canvassers under section
204 of the Election Code of 1971 to return the same to the respective Boards of
Inspectors for completion of the details complained of in the petition which
the respondents do not deny are actual­ly unstated in the first twenty-eight
returns above enume­rated as well as the correction of the data regarding the
number of ballots found in the compartment for valid bal­lots, in the last
eight of said precincts, which Comelec found to be
erroneous because of the mistaken interpreta­tion of the inspectors of the true
nature of the informa­tion required thereby; with the clarification that, since
the respective ballot boxes have already been closed and to avoid that the
boards of inspectors concerned may re­sort to plain memory in completing the
returns in ques­tion, the corresponding ballot boxes should be opened, in the
premises of the Comelec, in its presence and under
its supervision after satisfying itself that the identity and the integrity of
the ballot boxes have not been violated, and also in the presence of
representatives of the parties in this case, for the sole purpose of securing
the data needed to complete the said returns, but without recounting the votes of each candidate as
they count the ballots actually used in voting (none of the ballots shall be
read); it is further understood that the tallies of the votes shall also be
closed by the signing by the inspectors in the spa­ces
immediately
after the end of the tallies, as
required by Section 190 of the Election Code of 1971; and as regards the
alleged irregularities in the returns for Precincts 140-A; 14, 17, 27-A, 64, 119, 126, 160-A and
22, which consist of discrepancies between the number of bars in the tallies,
on the one hand and the words and figures referring to the number of votes
received by petitioner and/or respondent Cuneta, and
the excess of five (5) votes for the total number of votes cast for Mayor over
the number of total votes actually cast by all the voters who voted in Precinct
140-A there being no way to determine at this 
stage, whether or not the results of the disputed election will be
affected by the irregularities alleged by petition­er, the Comelec resolution
under review is affirmed, with­out prejudice to petitioner raising the same
questions af­ter the proceedings of completion and correction above-ordered;
and, finally, as to the objections raised by petitioner to the returns for
Precincts 193, 247, 96 and 219, the Comelec
resolution thereon is affirmed, the matter therein involved being appropriate for an election protest
rather than a pre-proclamation proceeding, apart from the fact that they were
not properly raised before the Comelec.

This decision is immediately
executory.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

 Castro Castro, J., did not take
part.

Teehankee, J., in the result.