G.R. No. 24316. November 28, 1967
EMILIANO R. FLORENDO, SR., PROTESTANT-APPELLEE, VS. PLAMASUR BUYSER, PROTESTEE-APPELLANT.
CASTRO, J.:
In the election for barrio captain of Bad-as, Placer, Surigao del Norte, held on January 12, 1964, Plamasur Buyser was on the same
day proclaimed elected following a canvass by the local board of election
tellers. The official tally gave him a
total of 232 votes as against 213 for his opponent, Emiliano
Florendo, Sr.
His election was thereupon contested by Florendo
who, in a petition lodged with the municipal court of Placer, charged that
there was error in the appreciation of the ballots; that the number of ballots
used and unused after the election exceeded that issued before the election;
and that there was a discrepancy between the number of voters who registered on
January 5, 1964 and the number of those who voted on January 12 as a result of
the “fraudulent” registration of additional voters on January 11 and
12.
Buyser moved to dismiss the petition;
when his motion was denied, he filed an answer, after which the case was heard.
The municipal court thereafter rendered judgment in favor of Buyser; it held that there was neither error in the
appreciation of ballots nor proof of fraud arising from the discrepancy in the
number of ballots. It declared the
registration of voters held on January 11 and 12, 1964 valid, because consented
to by both Florendo and Buyser. It ruled that, while the registration of new
voters on a date other than that fixed by law was irregular, of the 57 late
registrants only 7 were new voters whose ballots, even if they are considered
as having been cast for Florendo, could not have
reversed the results of the election.
From this judgment Florendo appealed to
the Court of First instance of Surigao del Norte, pursuant to section 8 of the Revised Barrio
Charter,[1]
with which he filed an amended protest.
He alleged, among other things, that after the reÂgistration of voters
on January 5, 1964, 33 more
were regisÂtered on January 11 and 12 and that these 33 unlawfully voted for Buyser. The case was
tried de novo, after which the court directed the parties to
submit memoranda on three issues: (1) whether the registration of voters on
January 11 and 12, 1964 was valid; (2) if it was illegal, whether the court
could anÂnul the election; and (3) in the event that the election is annulled,
whether it could order a new election.
After the submission of
memoranda by the parties, the court issued on July 20, 1964 an order stating:
“The Commission on Elections fixed the date of registration of
voters in its resolution to be not later than January 5, 1964.
The resolution does not provide for any other day of registration. The resolution also provides that if no
election is held on the day fixed by the Commission on Elections which is
January 12, 1964, it may be held on any other day within the month of January,
to be determined in a resolution by the council and if it is not held within
the month of January, it shall be held on a day to be fixed by the Provincial
Governor upon petition by the barrio council which will not be beyond forty days
from the date of the said petition.
“Clearly the registration of voters on January 11 and 12,
1964, was not authorized and the same was null and void. The election on January 12 having included
voters registered on said days is also null and void.
“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares that the election of Barrio
Council Members of Bad-as, Placer, on January 12, 1964, is null and void, and
pursuant to the provisions of the resolution of the Commission on Elections of
December 5, 1963, the Court hereby directs that the Provincial Governor be furÂnished
with a certified copy of this order so that pursuant to this order he shall
call new elections to be held on a fixed day not later than 40 days from this
date for the election of the Members of the Barrio Council of barrio Bad-as,
Placer, Surigao del Norte.”
From this order, Buyser appealed to
this Court. He conÂtends that the trial
court erred (1) in not allowing him to present evidence of his agreement with Florendo to permit the registration of additional voters
after January 5, 1964, and
(2) in annulling the registration of voters held on JaÂnuary 11 and 12, 1964
and the election held on the latter date.
The first contention is palpably without merit as no manner or form of agreement by the parties can validate
registration of voters hold subsequent to the deadline date fixed by law, in
this case January 5, 1964.
The second contention is likewise devoid of merit.
Section 8 of the Revised Barrio Charter provides in part that ?
“Not later than the first Sunday of January of the election
year in accordance with this secÂtion, there shall be a registration of new
voters to be conducted by the board of tellers. . . .”
The registration of voters on January 11
and 12, 1964 was void, but this is not sufficient reason for the annulment of
the election. As this Court has said in
another case,[2]
“the power to throw out an entire division is one which ought to be
exercised with the greatest care and only under circumstances which deÂmonstrate
beyond all reasonable doubt either that the disregard of the law has been so
fundamental or so persistent and contiÂnuous that it is impossible to
distinguish what votes are lawÂful and what are unlawful, or to arrive at any
certain result whatever, or that the great body of the voters have been
prevented by violence, intimidation, and threats from exercising their
franchise.”
True it is that in Reyes v. Biteng[3]
this Court annulled the election in two precincts on account of the
registration of voters made outside the days fixed by law, but this action was
justified by its findings that as a result of the irregularity “many
voters, without any qualification whatsoever . . . succeeded in having their names
inscribed in the official list” and that it was “impossible to
segregate the legal from the illegal votes and because the frauds and
irregularities comÂmitted had affected the entire election to such an extent
that it is impossible to ascertain the true will of the voters authorized to
exercise the right of suffrage.”[4]
In contrast, here there is no allegation either that the voters
registered on January 11 and 12, 1964 are disqualified or that it is impossible
to separate their votes from those cast by the rest of
the voters in Bad-as so as to warrant the annulment of the entire election.
In many respects this case is similar to Deles v. Alkonga[5]
in which the following findings and ruling were made by this Court:
“‘With reference to the third assignment of erÂror, the fact
that the first registration of voters was held in the town of San Dionisio instead of the barrio of Bagacay,
which was the place fixed by the resolution of the municipal council, and the
second registration in the barrio of Bagacay, and the
voting in the town of San Dionisio, while it
constitutes an irregularity, said fact is not sufficient to annul the whole
election in precinct No. 3 of San Dionisio where 185
electors had voted, inasmuch as it does not appear that the forty-eight
electors registered in said precinct were not able to vote by reason of said
change, and not for any other reason, nor does it appear that had they voted,
they would have voted for the protestant, Ramon Deles. The only qualified elecÂtor whom the
protestant could present and who was not able to vote on account of said
change, was Fermin Montejo. Anatolio Begaforo, even if he had wanted to vote, would not have
been able to do so, because he was not registered as a voter in said
precinct.”
In the case at hand, instead of annulling the election, the court
a quo should have proceeded to ascertain not only who registered
after January 5, 1964 but
also for whom each of them voted, in order to determine the correctness of Florendo’s allegation that all the illegal registrants
voted for Buyser.
The necessary adjustment in the number of votes cast for each of the
candidates could then accordingly be made.
The trial court has to make these vital findings of fact, beÂcause the
factual findings of the municipal court were necessarily vacated by the appeal,[6]
and the case stood for trial de novo, “as though the same
had never been tried before and had been originally there commenced.”
ACCORDINGLY, the order a quo of July 20, 1964 is set aside, and this
case is remanded to the Court of First Instanced of Surigao
del Norte for further proceedings. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Dizon, Acting C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Reyes, J., on
official leave.
[1]
Rep. Act 3590, effective June 22, 1963,
repealed Rep. Act 2370.
[2] Demetrio v. Lopez, 50 Phil. 45, 60 (1927), citing 20
C .J. 179-181
[3] 57 Phil. 100 (1932).
[4] Id.
at 113-114.
[5] 53 Phil. 93, 96-97 (1929).
[6]
Rule 40, Sec. 9.