MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF BANSUD, ORIENTAL MINDORO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is the fourth time the matter concerning the proclamation of the elected
mayor of the newly created municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro, has been
brought before this Court. The first case is G. R. No. L-16360, wherein Filemon
Salcedo, Jr. questioned the authority of the Commission on Elections to annul
the proclamation made in his favor by the Provincial Board of Oriental Mindoro
acting as municipal board of canvassers pursuant to Section 167(6) of the
Revised Election Code. In our decision promulgated on January 29, 1960, we
upheld the action of the Commission on Elections in setting aside the
proclamation and ordering the already existing municipal council to meet as
municipal board of canvassers make a new canvass and proclaim the winning
candidates.

After our decision in that case had become final and executory, the
Commission on Elections ordered the Municipal Council of Bansud to proceed to
the canvass sending as its representative Atty. Osmundo L. Oppus. Pursuant to
said instruction the municipal board of canvassers met and during the canvass
the representatives of Manpusti, Salcedo’s opponent, discovered that the votes
of both candidates appearing in the municipal treasurer’s copy of the return for
precinct No. 2 did not tally with the votes of the same candidates appearing in
the correct copy of the return of the Commission on Elections for the same
precinct, and the discrepancy would affect the result of the election because on
the basis of the first return Salcedo would get a total of 1,248 votes as
against Manpusti’s 1,216, while under the second copy Salcedo’s votes would only
be 1,223 and Manpusti’s 1,236.

In view of the above discrepancy, Atty. Oppus instructed the municipal board
of canvassers to canvass only the votes of the candidates for vice-mayor and
councilors and refrain from proclaiming the mayor-elect so that any interested
party may seek. the proper court remedy, but despite said instruction, the
municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Salcedo as the mayor-elect of Bansud.
Whereupon, Atty. Oppus immediately reported the matter by telegram to the
Commission on Elections and proceeded to Manila.

On March 29,1960, Manpusti and Luciano A. Joson, Governor of Oriental
Mindoro, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition praying inter alia
for the annulment of the canvass and proclamation of Salcedo on the ground that
the municipal board of canvassers acted in violation of the Election Law as well
as the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission on Elections, to
which Salcedo filed an opposition. After due hearing, the Commission ignored the
opposition of Salcedo while it set Manpusti’s petition for hearing. It is
against this order that Salcedo brought to second case before this Court in the
form of certiorari and prohibition contesting the jurisdiction of the Commission
on Elections to annul the canvass and proclamation made in his favor by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bansud (108 Phil., 1184). After due hearing,
this Court, in a decision rendered on July 26, 1960, dismissed the petition
upholding the authority of the Commission on Elections to entertain the petition
of Manpusti concerning the validity of the aforesaid canvass and
proclamation.

Said decision having become final and executory, the Commission on Elections
proceeded with its scheduled hearing after which it approved a resolution on
October 18, 1960 annulling the canvass of votes and proclamation made in favor
of Salcedo by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bansud on May 24, 1960 and
holding that under Section 168, in connection with Section 163, of the Revised
Election Code, the remedy of recount on the basis of discrepancy of votes
appearing in the two copies of election returns is no longer available because
the copy of the return pertaining to the municipal treasurer is falsified
and, as a consequence, it ordered said municipal board of canvassers to again
convene and make a canvass of the votes cast for mayor using as basis thereof
the copy of the election return of precinct No. 2 in possession of the
Commission on Elections, proclaiming thereafter the candidate that may have
received the highest number of votes. Against this order, Salcedo again came to
this Court also in the form of cer-tiorari and prohibition contesting the
validity of the aforesaid resolution of the Commission on Elections (G. R. No.
L-17672,), but on November 16, 1960, this Court, in a minute resolution, denied
the petition thereby affirming the resolution of the respondent Commission.

Again, when the above decision o| this Court became final and executory, the
Commission on Elections instructed the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bansud
to make a new canvass as previously ordered but while it was in the process of
being carried out, an order of the local court of first instance came enjoining
the municipal board from making the canvass until further order from the court.
As a result, the municipal board desisted from proceeding with the canvass as
ordered by the Commission on Elections. However, on February 11, 1961, the court
of first instance dissolved the injunction it issued and dismissed the petition
for recount of votes. It said that to entertain such petition would in a way
have the effect of reviewing a resolution or ruling of the Commission on
Elections regarding the propriety of the recount of votes on the basis of
discrepancy of votes appearing in two copies of the election returns when one
thereof has been falsified, which ruling has been impliedly upheld by the
Supreme Court, and hence it considered itself as bereft of jurisdiction to
entertain the petition. And so, even if Salceclo filed a motion for
reconsideration, Manpusti, his opponent, filed with the Commission a petition
for immediate recanvass and proclamation of the mayor-elect. Whereupon, acceding
thereto, the Commission directed the municipal board of canvassers to appear
before it on June 5, 1961 to then and there undertake the new canvass requested.
Pursuant to the order, the members of the municipal board appeared before it on
the aforesaid date, with the exception of Vicente de Guia, who was ill.

During the meeting, the members discussed the propriety of the canvass
considering that while the court of first instance has dissolved the preliminary
injunction issued against the holding of a new canvass, Salcedo has however
filed a motion for reconsideration, and they were apprehensive that if they
would act without waiting for the resolution of the court on said motion they
might be dealt with as for contempt of court. But during the discussion the
members of the Commission informed the councilors that they were already given
orders to meet and make a new canvass and were made to understand that if by
tomorrow, June 6, they would not appear to carry out their instruction, they
would be suspended and substituted hy others in order that the canvass may be
carried out.

On the morning of the next day, June 6, the councilors again appeared, but
only to inform the Commission that Vice-Mayor de la Peña, and Councilors Minay,
Lalo and Esteva cannot comply with the instruction of the Commission in view of
the stand they had previously taken, whereupon the Commission suspended, them
and appointed Messrs. Dominador Israel, Jaime Layosa, Quezon D. Manga wang, and
V. Rolando Jocson as substitutes, and as thus reconstituted, the new municipal
board of canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclamation of the
mayor-elect.

In the meantime, the suspended vice-mayor and councilors filed the present
petition contesting the authority of the Commission on Elections to suspend them
and appoint substitutes in their places praying at the same time that pending
determination of the case a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain
respondents from carrying out the proposed new canvass and proclamation of the
mayor elect. This is the fourth case. The court gave due course to the petition
but declined to issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

The issue to be determined is whether the long-deJayed recanvass of the
election returns for the mayor-elect of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro should proceed
or not in spite of the three previous incidents that had arisen relative to the
same recanvass and which have merited due and proper consideration by this
Court. In said incidents, it should be recalled, this Court had upheld the
authority of the Commission on Elections to intervene and take appropriate
action in order that the canvass of the votes may be properly made and justice
done to the mayor-elect whoever he may be. This is the fourth attempt to
forestall and dispute such authority in an effort to further delay the
proclamation of the duly elected mayor of said municipality.

It appears that on June 6, 1961, in compliance with the decision of this
Court in the third case which upheld the authority of the respondent Commission
to order a new canvass of votes for the position of mayor of Bansud, the
municipal board of canvassers, as reconstituted, proceeded with the recanvass
and proclaimed as duly elected mayor respondent Leon Manpusti, the opponent of
Salcedo, in view of the refusal of this Court to enjoin the holding of said
recanvass as prayed for in the petition. Mayor-elect Manpusti has already taken
the oath of his office and is now discharging the duties of mayor. On the other
hand, petitioner Salcedo, not to be outdone, lost no time in filing an election
protest before the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro.

The question that now arises is: Has the Commission on Elections acted
properly and within its functions and prerogatives in suspending the four
members of the municipal board of canvassers and substituting them with others,
when they refused to proceed with the canvass as ordered by the Commission on
June 6, 1961 on the pretext that Salcedo has filed a motion for reconsideration
of the order of the court dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction and
dismissing the petition for recount of votes?

Our answer is in the affirmative, it appearing that the petition for recount
was dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved because of
the main reason that the court found itself bereft of jurisdiction to act
thereon in view of the ruling of the Commission on Elections regarding the
futility of said recount because of its finding that one of the returns was
found to be falsified which was impliedly upheld by the Supreme Court. The
futility of said motion for reconsideration was therefore apparent, as in fact
no action thereon has up to the present been taken by the court. On the other
hand, it appears undisputed that the petitioning members who were suspended and
substituted by the Commission on Elections openly defied the authority of said
Commission by then and there refusing to act upon the pretext that they might be
held in contempt of court in view of the motion for reconsideration filed by
Salcedo, which excuse is indeed flimsy considering that the injunction has
already been dissolved and they were ordered to comply with their duty by a
superior constitutional authority whose power under the law is clear. Their
attitude evinces no other purpose than a desire to filibuster in order to
further delay the canvass of votes which they knew would be adverse to their
colleague, Filemon Salcedo, Jr. Evidently, it was an attempt on their part to
befuddle the situation hoping that in the process they might still succeed in
proclaiming their colleague thru a ruse, or a technicality, but the Commission
on Elections, ever watchful and vigilant, thwarted such a design in spite of all
efforts to the contrary.

The incident raised here regarding the alleged certification made by the
secretary and attorneys of the Commission on Elections to the effect that
petitioners were suspended on June 5, 1961 when, according to thestenographic
notes, they were suspended on June 6, 1961, for which they were cited for
contempt, we consider of no consequence considering that the date of
petitioners’ suspension is immaterial it appearing that they filed the present
petition not only as members of the municipal board of canvassers, but in their
individual capacity.

Wherefore, petition is denied, with costs against petitioning vice-mayor and
councilors.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.