JOSE I. LIM, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC AND PEDRO FRANCIA, RESPONDENTS.

This is an original action for Certiorari with Preliminary
Injunction directed against Hon. Enrique Maglanoc, of the CFI of Quezon
Province, and Pedro Francia.

In the November 10, 1959 elections, petitioner Jose I. Lim and
respondent Pedro Francia were mayoralty candidates in Agdañgan, Quezon
Province. During the canvass of the election returns by the municipal
board of canvassers, the petitioners and respondent received 458 and
481 votes, respectively, in 6 out of 9 precincts.

According to the present petition, in the remaining 3 precincts, (1,
3 and 6), there were discrepancies in the statement of election
returns, to wit:—

Precinct No. 1:—The votes obtained by petitioner appear “one hundred seven” in words, but “117” in figures;
Precinct No. 3:—The number of votes garnered by respondent Francia written in words, was illegible; and
Precinct No. 6:—The votes listed for Francia appear to be “seventy-nine” in words, but only “19” in figures.

The Board of Canvassers elevated the matter to the respondent Court
for recount, pursuant to Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election
Code. For failure of the Board to file the requisite pleading, however,
the petitioner on December 1, 1959, presented a Petition to Recount
with a prayer for a writ of Preliminary Injunction (Case No. 6265),
which was issued, restraining the Board of Canvassers from taking
further steps in the premises and from proclaiming the elected Mayor.

On December 22, 1959, the respondent Judge handed down, the following Order:—

“After reading the memorandums of the petitioner
and the respondents and considering the arguments therein contained,
this Court is of the opinion and so holds that in this case it should
not count the ballots cast in Precincts No. 1, 3 and 6 of the
Municipality of Agdañgan, but simply to base the corrections
contemplated in Section 163 of the Revised Election Code on the
corresponding tally sheets.

Wherefore, the opinion of the
petitioner to the effect that the ballots cast in Precincts No. 1, 3
and 6 should be counted is hereby rejected, and the motion for
reconsideration and the lifting of the preliminary injunction of the
respondents, denied.”

Both parties presented motions for reconsideration to the above
order, petitioner insisting that for purposes of the recount, the
ballots themselves should be read, instead of merely referring to the
corresponding tally sheets. The motions were denied on January 22,
1960, and the case for the implementation of the order was set for
hearing on February 4, 1960.

Petitioner alleges that respondent Judge in promulgating the order
of December 22, 1959, quoted above and denying the motion for
reconsideration, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion.

The petition was given due course, and as prayed for, a writ of
preliminary injunction was issued restraining the respondent Court from
proceeding with the recount. Respondent Francia denied, in his answer
to the petition, the existence of discrepancies in the election
returns. The respondent Judge filed a separate answer, submitting the
case for a ruling, albeit contending that the corrections should be
based upon the corresponding tally sheets. The issues raised before Us,
therefore, boil down to the following proposition:

Shall the lower court recount the ballots cast in Precincts Nos. 1,
3 and 6, as prayed for by petitioner or shall it simply rely on the
figures contained in the tally sheets, as ordered by said court?

Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Law are cited by the petitioner in support of his contention.

Let us solve the issues by Precincts, having in view the
certifications of the Commission on Elections and the Provincial
Treasurer.

Precinct No. 1:—The supposed discrepancy consists in the
number of votes in favor of the petitioner (Annex C, certification of
the Commission on Elections). According to Annex C, the votes obtained
by him appear to be “one hundred seven” votes in words and “117” votes
in figures; while Francia obtained “seventy-three” in words and “73” in
figures. Respondent Francia submits that such discrepancy, which is
uniformly carried in all the authentic copies of the return, does not
lawfully warrant the opening of the ballot boxes for the purpose of
examining the tally sheets, as ordered by the lower court. Respondent
argues that Section 163 of the Election Law refers to discrepancies
between another copy or other authentic copies of the
election return from a precinct, and Section 168 speaks of
“contradictions and discrepancies between copies of the same
statements”, thereby excluding within its purview the discrepancy in
question. There is no discrepancy between the copies of the same
statement. In the case of Jose Parlade, Jr., et al., vs. Judges Perfecto Quicho and Mateo Alcasid, et al., G. R. No. L-16259, Dec. 29, 1959, We have stated:—

“Sections 163 and 168 refer to differences between the statement
(before the Board of Canvassers for purposes of canvassing) and another
copy or other authentic copies thereof. What is such statement?
Obviously, the statement of election returns presented by the
Provincial Treasurer (in case of Provincial Board of Canvassers) and
the Municipal Treasurer (in case of municipal board of canvassers).
These two sections 163 and 168 should be read together.”

Respondent, therefore, finally contends that inasmuch as said
sections authorize the Court to order the opening of the ballot boxes
when there are contradictions among the different copies of the same
election returns; and the discrepancy in this precinct consisted merely
in the difference in the reported result, as to the number of votes
received by the petitioner, between the votes expressed in words and
that expressed in figures, the general rule of statutory construction
to the effect that the number in words must prevail over that in
figures, must perforce be applied. It would seem, however, that what we
have suggested in the Parlade case (supra), would help in our efforts to find a solution. It was also there stated:—

“* * *. In this connection, it is best to emphasize that the whole theory of the election law rests on the prima facie
presumption of honesty and integrity of the board of inspectors. On
that presumption, it directs the board of canvassers to make the
proclamation on the basis of such reports (‘statements’ the law calls
them) as the inspectors shall make. Aware, however, of the failings of
human nature and foreseeing the possibility of error, the Legislature
has permitted the correction by the court in clear cases at the request of the inspectors themselves (sec. 154 and the Benitez and Sison cases, supra). Also where there are conflicts between one copy of their statement and another copy of authentic copy thereof (or in the statement itself, words contradicting figures), there arises ex necessitate rei the need of finding, which statement or number should be followed by the Board. So the law gives the court of first instance power to recount the votes cast in the precinct. * * *”.

Precinct No. 3:—Petitioner claims that the votes obtained
by Francia in words is “illegible”. It appears that this alleged
discrepancy consisted merely in the difficulty encountered by certain
members of the board of canvassers in reading the written words,
appearing after the name of candidate Francia. With the statement of
the Provincial Treasurer (Annex A, Answer), certifying to the fact that
the votes received in Precinct No. 3 by the respondent and by the other
candidates, are clear and legible; and that what appeared in
the copy of the election return transmitted to him by the board of
inspectors as required by law, is that Pedro Francia obtained “one
hundred twenty-seven” in words and “127” in figures, and Lim “seventy”
in words and “70” in figures, the doubt is dispelled, and there would
seem to be no necessity in resorting to said sections 163 and 168 of
the Election law. It is a proposition replete with dangers to allow the
opening of the ballot boxes, just because a member of the board of
canvassers could not read or pretended not to be able to read, a
portion of the return, when the Provincial Treasurer attested that the
same was “clear and legible”.

Precinct No. 6:—Petitioner alleged that the discrepancy in
the return, consists of the supposed difference in the reported votes
of respondent between the votes which appear to be “seventy-nine” in
words and “19” in figures. The respondent presented a certification of
the Commission on Election (Annex B, Answer), to the effect that there
is no discrepancy as to the number of votes received by the mayoralty
candidates, which is found to be “seventy-nine” in words and “79” in
figures for Francia, and “one hundred fifteen” in words and “115” in
figures for Lim. In view of the aforesaid clear and unmistakable
certification of the Commission on Election, the very constitutional
body called upon to supervise elections, further intervention of the
lower court in the case, is unnecessary.

Pursuant to the above findings, therefore, the discrepancies found
in Precinct No. 1 would substantially affect the result of the election
for the position of the Mayor in the municipality in question. As
heretofore stated, according to the election returns in this precinct,
Lim obtained “one hundred seven” votes (in words) and “117” in figures;
while Francia, seventy-three (73) both in words and figures. If 117 is
given to Lim and 73 to Francia, each will have the following total of
votes:

Precinct:	Lim:	Francia:
1	117	73
	(in figures)
3	70	127
6	115	79
Other 6
precincts	458	481
	_______________	______________
	760	760 (tie)