TOMAS DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LA UNION AND JUAN T. LUCERO, RESPONDENTS.

This
proceeding is for the purpose of having this court issue a mandamus
addressed to the provincial board of canvassers of the Province of La
Union, ordering it to meet and reject and annul all the votes
adjudicated to the respondent Juan T. Lucero, and after correcting the
election return, to proclaim and certify the petitioner elected for the
office of provincial governor of La Union in accordance with law.

As ground of the petition, it is alleged that the respondent provincial
board of canvassers met on June 22,1925, for the purpose of counting
the votes cast in the election for provincial officers and certifying
the result of the count, and after gathering all the election returns,
it found that the petitioner had obtained 7,662 votes and the
respondent Juan T. Lucero 8,771 votes; that the original of the
certificate of candidacy of the respondent Juan T. Lucero, a certified
copy of which is Exhibit A, was not duly sworn to, as required by law,
while the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner Tomas de Guzman,
the original of which is Exhibit B, was prepared and filed in
accordance with the requirements of the law; that notwithstanding that
Juan T. Lucero did not file a certificate of candidacy duly sworn to,
as provided in section 404 of the Election Law, the respondent
provincial board of canvassers willfully and illegally adjudicated the
8,771 votes to the respondent, and afterwards illegally proclaimed and
certified him as governor-elect of the Province of La Union; that in
view of these facts the respondent Juan T. Lucero has not, and could
not have, been a legal candidate for the office in question, and could
not have been certified elected for the office of provincial governor.

To this complaint the respondent filed a demurrer on the ground: (a) That the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter in litigation; (b)
that the court had no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant
members of the extinguished provincial board of canvassers of La Union;
and (c) that the facts alleged in the complaint did not constitute a cause of action.

The question to be decided in this proceeding is whether or not the
respondent has filed a certificate of candidacy in accordance with the
law, and in case he has not, whether the writ applied for should be
issued.

Section 41 of Act No. 3030, amending section 471 of
the Election Law, provides that the provincial board of canvassers or
the Governor-General, as the case may be, shall certify elected for the
offices of senator or member of the House of Representatives and for
provincial officers only those who shall have obtained the highest
number of votes, and filed their certificates of candidacy in
accordance with the provisions of section 404 of this law. And said
section 404, as amended by section 3 of the same Act No. 3030, provides
that no person shall be eligible for the office of senator,
representative or any provincial office, unless within the time fixed
by the law, he shall file a certificate of candidacy duly verified. The
meaning of the phrase “a certificate of candidacy duly verified,” is
explained by this court in Viola vs. Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur and Adolfo (47 Phil., 849), to the effect that “* * *
only when the corresponding receipt has been issued and the certificate
filed can it be presumed that it has been duly verified and filed.”

In the instant case, according to the allegations of the petitioner the
respondent Juan T. Lucero filed his certificate of candidacy in the
office of the secretary of the provincial board of La Union on April
15, 1925, the provincial secretary having issued the proper receipt for
the filing of said certificate, together with a statement of the
expenses attached thereto (Exhibit 2). It, therefore, seems clear that
the respondent filed his certificate of candidacy in accordance with
the Spanish text of section 404 of the Election Law, as amended by
section 3 of Act No. 3030.

But the petitioner argues that
section 404 of the Election Law, as amended by section 3 of Act No.
3030, is mandatory in its terms, and therefore must be complied with by
the provincial board, respondent herein. Granting that the English text
of the law in this case makes clear the Spanish text “Certificado de
candidatura debidamente acreditado” (certificate of candidacy duly
verified), it will be seen that said section 3 of Act No. 3030 requires
the candidate to file a “certificate of candidacy duly verified,”
indicating by these two words that the certificate of candidacy must be
sworn to. In the case before us the certificate of the respondent Juan
T. Lucero was defective, lacking the formality of the oath. This
irregularity might have justified the elimination of the name of Juan
T. Lucero as a legal candidate for the office of provincial governor,
if an objection on the part of the petitioner Tomas de Guzman had been
made in due time. Yet we are of the opinion that this irregularity does
not invalidate the election for the fundamental reason that after it
was proven by the count of the votes that Juan T. Lucero had obtained
the majority of the legal votes, the will of the people cannot be
frustrated by a technicality consisting in that his certificate of
candidacy had not been properly sworn to.

This court in the case of Gardiner vs.
Romulo (26 Phil., 521), following authoritative decisions of the United
States, which establish rules of interpretation of election laws, said;

“The
provisions of the Election Law declaring that a certain irregularity in
an election procedure is fatal to the validity of the ballot or of the
returns, or when the purpose and spirit of the law would be plainly
defeated by a substantial departure from the prescribed method, are
mandatory.

“When the Election Law does not provide that a
departure from a prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has
been due to an honest mistake or misinterpretation of the Election Law
on the part of him who was obligated to observe it, and such departure
has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices or for the
intimidation of voters, and it is clear that there has been a free and
honest expression of the popular will, the law will be held directory
and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity.”

And in Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez (39 Phil., 208), this court laid down the following doctrine:

“It
has been announced in many decisions that the rules and regulations,
for the conduct of elections, are mandatory before the election, but
when it is sought to enforce them after the election, they are held to
be directory only, if that is possible, especially where, if they are
held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their votes
without any fault on their part, The various and numerous provisions of
the Election Law were adopted to assist the voters in their
participation in the affairs of the government and not to defeat
that object. When the voters have honestly cast their ballots, the same
should not be nullified simply because the officers appointed under the
law to direct the election and guard the purity of the ballot have not
done their duty. The law provides a remedy, by criminal action, against
them. They should be prosecuted criminally, and the will of the honest
voter, as expressed through his ballot, should be protected and upheld.”

We hold that the legal provision here in question is mandatory and
non-compliance therewith before the election would have been fatal to
the recognition of the status of Juan T. Lucero as candidate. But after
the people have expressed their will honestly, the result of the
election cannot be defeated by the fact that the respondent who was
certified by the provincial secretary to be a legal candidate for the
office of provincial governor, has not sworn to his
certificate of candidacy. The situation is somewhat like that of a
voter placing his ballot in the box. There are certain requirements of
the law, affecting the vote, which have been considered by this court
as of a mandatory character until the ballot is placed in the ballot
box; but we have held that the validity of the count cannot be
questioned, nor the vote stricken out after the ballots had been placed
in the ballot boxes, simply for non-compliance with such provisions.
After the termination of the election, public interest must be made to
prevail over that of the defeated candidate, and we cannot declare that
the election of the respondent Juan T. Lucero was illegal, and that he
should quit the office for which he was elected, simply by reason of a
defect in his certificate of candidacy, which defect could have been
corrected before the election, but which cannot be cured after its
termination, and after the result of the election was published by the
provincial board of canvassers, respondent herein.

Of course
the conclusion which we have arrived at tends to sustain the third
ground of the demurrer of the respondent. We will not enter upon the
discussion of the two first grounds of said demurrer, for it may be
seen that they are clearly untenable.

The demurrer of the
respondent is therefore sustained upon the third ground, and
considering that in view of our ruling upon the only legal question
raised in this proceeding, the complaint cannot be amended, this case
is definitely adjudicated, and the writ of mandamus applied for is
denied with the costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Malcolm, J., concurs in the result.