CORAZON M. ESPINO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND PATRICIO DUMLAO, RESPONDENTS.

Espino versus Zaldivar

The Case

This is an original action for certiorari and prohibition brought by Corazon M. Espino against Assistant Executive Secretary Calixto Zaldivar, the Commission on Elections, and Patricio Dumlao. Espino asks the Supreme Court to annul the proclamation of Dumlao as Governor-elect of Nueva Vizcaya, made on January 2, 1964 by a substitute board of canvassers. The case matters because it draws the dividing line between two very different situations: a genuine discrepancy among authentic copies of election returns, which calls for a judicial recount, and a return that was plainly tampered with after it left the hands of the election inspectors, which the canvassing board may simply disregard.

Procedural History

This case began as an original petition for certiorari and prohibition filed directly with the Supreme Court. Earlier, on December 29, 1963, Espino had filed a separate petition for certiorari questioning the power of the Commission on Elections to issue its December 26 resolution, but she withdrew that petition on January 4, 1964, after being officially notified of her earlier proclamation. The Court declined to issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for, so the proclamation of Dumlao stood in the meantime while the Court resolved the merits.

Facts

Corazon M. Espino and Patricio Dumlao were the registered candidates for Governor of Nueva Vizcaya in the November 12, 1963 elections. On November 19, Dumlao asked the Commission on Elections to direct the provincial board of canvassers to use the Commission's copies of the election returns from six precincts of Aglipay, because the Provincial Treasurer had not yet received his copies. The Commission enjoined the board from canvassing without its prior order, but on December 2 the board canvassed the returns for the entire province anyway. The Provincial Treasurer's copies from the six precincts arrived that same afternoon.

When the Commission's representative examined those copies, he found the envelopes slit at the bottom, the paper seals broken, and the words and figures showing visible traces of erasures. The Commission ordered that the Municipal Treasurer's copies be used instead, but the board ignored the order. On December 26, the Commission issued a resolution directing the board to canvass using the Municipal Treasurer's copies and thereafter to proclaim the candidates elected. Espino claims the board signed the certificate and proclaimed her that same day with 18,836 votes against Dumlao's 18,476. Dumlao avers that no meeting took place on December 26 and that the signers signed in different places on different dates.

On January 1, 1964, not one member of the board appeared for the scheduled canvass. The Commission's representative, after searching for them without success, was authorized to appoint substitutes. On January 2, the newly constituted board convened, used the Municipal Treasurer's copies for Aglipay, and proclaimed Dumlao Governor-elect with 19,031 votes against Espino's 18,278. The Commission confirmed these proceedings on January 4, and the Office of the President announced it would recognize Dumlao unless the courts declared otherwise. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections has authority to direct the board of canvassers to disregard the Provincial Treasurer's copies of the returns from the six precincts of Aglipay and to use the Municipal Treasurer's copies instead.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections may order a canvass after the original board of canvassers had allegedly proclaimed the petitioner.
• Whether or not the board of canvassers that proclaimed Patricio Dumlao Governor-elect was duly constituted.

Applicable Provisions

Section 163 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Section 163. When statements of a precinct are contradictory. 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, the Court of First Instance of the province, upon motion of the board or of any candidate affected, may proceed to recount the votes cast in the precinct for the sole purpose of determining which is the true statement or which is the true result of the count of the votes cast in said precinct for the office in question. Notice of such proceeding shall be given to all candidates affected.

This provision is the heart of the case, because Espino invokes it to argue that the remedy for the discrepancy in Aglipay was a judicial recount, not a substitution of returns by the Commission.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission acted correctly. Section 163 presupposes that the differing copies are all authentic, prepared and signed by the inspectors. Here, the tampering occurred after the returns left the hands of the inspectors, as confirmed by the chairmen of all six precincts. The Court refused to read the statute as throwing the burden on the courts whenever tampering is patent, saying that to do so would pave the way for the proclamation of a candidate in whose favor falsification was resorted to. Canvassers are given quasi-judicial powers to determine whether a return is genuine and to disregard one that is obviously a forgery. The Court distinguished the Chiongbian case, where the discrepancy was not attributed to tampering and could be ascribed to clerical error, and therefore properly called for a recount. It also stressed that Section 163 must be restrictively construed.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the Commission's power to order a new canvass. The Commission possesses supervisory powers over boards of canvassers under Section 3 of the Revised Election Code, and the board cannot with impunity disregard its orders issued in pursuance of its constitutional duty to enforce and administer the election laws.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the substitute board. The original members could not be located despite diligent search, and the Commission was authorized to appoint their substitutes, who then validly canvassed the votes and proclaimed Dumlao.

Doctrine

The judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code applies only where the conflicting copies are all authentic returns prepared and signed by the election inspectors, and the discrepancy may be attributed to clerical error. Where the return was falsified after it left the hands of the inspectors, the board of canvassers may disregard it as a spurious statement and use the genuine copies. Section 163 is a special authority that must be construed restrictively. The Commission on Elections has supervisory authority over boards of canvassers and may order a new canvass and the appointment of substitutes when the original members abscond.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the proclamation of Patricio Dumlao as Governor-elect of Nueva Vizcaya was upheld.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a tampered return is no longer a return, so the board may disregard it without need of a judicial recount. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a genuine discrepancy under Section 163 and a plainly falsified return, and to test the supervisory powers of the Commission on Elections over boards of canvassers.