PACIANO M. MIRALLES, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. FRANCISCO C. GARIANDO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Miralles, et al. were candidates for the offices of mayor, vice-mayor, and
councilors, respectively, of Alang-alang, Leyte in the elections held on
November 10, 1959. Francisco C. Gariando, et al. were also candidates for the
same municipal offices in the same elections who allegedly failed to file their
certificates of candidacy as required by law. They allegedly filed with the
municipal secretary merely unsigned mimeographed copies of their supposed
certificates of candidacy. Hence, on November 19, 1959, Miralles, et al. filed
with the Court of First Instance of Leyte a petition for prohibition and
mandamus praying that the municipal board of canvassers of Alangalang be
prohibited from making a canvass of the election held in connection with the
municipal officials while at the same time praying that said board be ordered to
proclaim petitioners as the duly elected officials of said municipality being
the only unopposed candidates for the offices specified in their certificates of
candidacy and that, pending action on the merits, a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued restraining the municipal board of canvassers from making
the canvass of the election for said offices as required by law.

Gariando, et al. were ordered to answer the petition within 10 days from
receipt thereof, but instead of complying with the injunction, they filed a
motion to dismiss and an opposition to the motion for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. The trial court set the motion for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction, as well as the motion to dismiss, for hearing,
at which the parties presented their evidence.

Petitioners presented as their witness Catalino Tante, municipal secretary of
Alangalang during the election of November 10, 1959. In answer to the direct
examination made by petitioners’ counsel, said witness produced copies of the
certificates of candidacy of respondents for the position of mayor, vice-mayor
and councilors; copies of the written acknowledgment made by him certifying to
the receipt of said certificates of candidacy; copy of the letter he sent to the
Commission on Elections informing the latter of the filing of said certificates
of candidacy; copy of the communication sent by the secretary of the provincial
board acknowledging receipt of the copy sent by the municipal secretary of the
same certificates of candidacy; copies of all the receipts issued by the
chairmen and poll clerks of all the precincts used in the municipality of
Alangalang wherein they acknowledged having received four copies of the
certificates of candidacy of all candidates for municipal positions. Besides
said documents, witness Tante also produced before the court the original carbon
copies of the certificates of candidacy of respondents for the offices for which
they were candidates, but after examining said exhibits, counsel for petitioners
decided not to mark them as their own, whereupon the court in the interest of
justice ordered that they be marked as exhibits X, X-1 to X-9.

The hearing was postponed to give petitioners an opportunity to present
further evidence in support of their petition, and at the continuation of said
hearing their counsel presented several witnesses in an attempt to show that the
certificates of candidacy marked as Exhibits X, X-1 to X-9 produced by Catalino
Tante were only surreptitiously entered in the records of the municipality of
Alangalang to substitute the unsigned copies actually filed by respondents and
which were later produced by witness Tante in court, but all his attempt to ask
questions to said witness relative to that matter was blocked by opposing
counsel on the ground of immateriality referring as they do to matters that had
happened after the elections, which objections were all sustained by the trial
court. And when counsel moved to postpone the hearing to give him time to bring
the matter on certiorari to the Supreme Court, the trial court refused,
considering the urgency of the case and the little time left for its disposal.
Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision. On December 8, 1959, the trial
court rendered decision denying the motion for preliminary injunction but
dismissing the petition in chief for having found that respondents have duly
filed their certificates of candidacy as required by law. Petitioners have
appealed.

While the trial court has been somewhat harsh towards counsel for petitioners
insofar as the examination of the several witnesses he presented is concerned in
an attempt to prove that the certificates of candidacy presented by witness
Catalino Tante which on their face appear to be duly signed had been
surreptitiously inserted into the records of his office and brought to court as
evidence, and that its ruling that he could not examine said witnesses with
regard to that irregularity is erroneous because that is the main theme of his
petition for mandamus, we find, however, that the dismissal of the petition is
correct not only because the trial court has no power to prevent a municipal
board of canvassers from complying with its ministerial duty of canvassing the
election within its jurisdiction but also because the remedy sought by
petitioners is not the one warranted by the circumstances.

Thus, under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code, it is the duty of the
municipal board of canvassers to meet immediately after the election and
to count the votes cast for the candidates of the different municipal offices
from the statement of elections that may be submitted to it by the municipal
treasurer and thereafter to proclaim as elected those who have pooled the
largest number of votes for said offices. Said board is considered merely as
ministerial body which is empowered only to accept as correct those returns
submitted to it which are in due form and to ascertain and declare the result as
it appears therefrom. Its duty is purely mechanical and extends only to the
counting up of the votes and awarding the certificate to those who may have
received the highest number. It cannot open the ballot boxes or recount the
votes. It has no judicial power. It must depend exclusively upon the statements
of returns made by the various precinct: election inspectors.^[1] It being the imperative duty of the board of
canvassers to meet immediately after the election, the courts cannot intervene
to prevent that board from fulfilling such duty, except only in those cases that
are expressly provided for by law (Section 163, Revised Election Code). The
instant case is not one of them.

On the other hand, we take note that one of the main grounds on which the
motion to dismiss filed by respondents is predicated is the fact that
petitioners had already filed before the Commission on Elections prior to the
canvass of the elections a similar petition praying that the board of canvassers
be prevented from carrying out the canvass on the ground that the certificates
of candidacy filed by respondents were not filed in accordance with law and that
said Commission denied the petition ruling that the matter submitted to it was
not within its competence because it involves the ineligibility of a candidate
for lack of proper certificate of candidacy. Petitioners, however, did not
appeal from said ruling thereby rendering the same final and binding upon
petitioners (Section 5, Revised Election Code).

It is our opinion that the remedy sought by petitioners is not the proper one
but to file a petition for quo warranto as provided for in Section 173 of
the Revised Election Code. If petitioners contend that respondents are not
eligible to be candidates because they failed to file properly their
certificates of candidacy as required by law, then the remedy is to contest
their election after they have been duly proclaimed. But such remedy can only be
availed of within one (1) week after the proclamation of the winning candidates.
Apparently, this remedy is now too late.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Galang vs. Miranda and De Leon,
36 Phil., 316; Dizon vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Laguna, 52
Phil., 47.