G.R. No. L-7312 - FEBRUARY 1954 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-7312February 26, 1954 Tito V. Tizon, et al. vs. Cecilio Doroja, et al. G.R. No. L-6754February 26, 1954 Mamerto Mission, et al. vs. Vicente S. del Rosario G.R. No. L-6277February 26, 1954 Juan D. Crisologo vs. People of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-6274February 26, 1954 Domingo Tiong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-6231February 26, 1954 Natividad Ariaga vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-6241February 26, 1954 Juan D. Salvador vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-6272February 26, 1954 Mariano Cacho vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-6203February 26, 1954 Jose R. Maglunob, et al. vs. National Abaca & Other Fibers Corp. G.R. No. L-6130February 26, 1954 Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Juez Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-5891February 26, 1954 Nazario Lagumen vs. Silvino Abasolo, et al. G.R. No. L-5798February 26, 1954 Demetria Flores vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp. G.R. No. L-5549February 26, 1954 In re: Tirso T. Reyes, et al. vs. Milagros Barretto-Datu G.R. No. L-5142February 26, 1954 Consolacion L. Ramos vs. Benigno A. Caoibes G.R. No. L-7302February 25, 1954 Luis T. Clarin vs. Hipolito Alo, et al. G.R. No. L-6511February 25, 1954 Association of Drugstore Employees vs. Arsenio C. Roldan, et al. G.R. No. L-6448February 25, 1954 Philippines International Fair, Inc., et al. vs. Fidel Ibañez, et al. G.R. Nos. L-6334 and L-6346February 25, 1954 Sebastian C. Palanca vs. Potenciano Pecson, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-6128February 25, 1954 Allied Workers Association of the Philippines vs. Insular Lumber Co. G.R. No. L-6088February 25, 1954 Catalina de los Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, et al. G.R. No. L-5932February 25, 1954 Alejandro Samson vs. Andrea B. Andal de Aguila, et al. G.R. No. L-5685February 25, 1954 Ireneo Mirafuentes, et al. vs. Victorio Sabellano, et al. G.R. No. L-5642February 25, 1954 Herminia Q. Kanapi vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. G.R. No. L-4844February 25, 1954 Director of Lands vs. Anastacio Abadilla, et al. G.R. No. L-6093February 24, 1954 Shell Co. of P.I. Ltd. vs. E. E. Vaño G.R. No. L-5081February 24, 1954 Marvel Building Corporation, et al. vs. Saturnino David G.R. No. L-7268February 22, 1954 Severina Basbano, et al. vs. Ramon Ibañez etc., et al. G.R. No. L-6272February 22, 1954 Tomas Bata Lianco, et al. vs. Deportation Board G.R. No. L-5253February 22, 1954 Santiago Ng vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-5178February 22, 1954 Emilio del Campo, et al. vs. Francisco del Campo, et al. G.R. No. L-5930February 17, 1954 People of the Philippines vs. Abelo Aragon G.R. No. L-5610February 17, 1954 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Bangalao, et al. G.R. No. L-5263February 17, 1954 Agustin Barrera, et al. vs. Jose Tampoco, et al. G.R. No. L-3255February 17, 1954 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Juan Fernandez y Otros G.R. No. L-5727February 12, 1954 Francisco Flores, et al. vs. Victor Plasina, et al. G.R. No. L-6409February 5, 1954 Leopoldo Gonzales vs. Secretary of Labor, et al. G.R. No. L-5609February 5, 1954 In re: Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Tito V. Tizon, et al. vs. Cecilio Doroja, et al. Mamerto Mission, et al. vs. Vicente S. del Rosario Juan D. Crisologo vs. People of the Phil., et al. Domingo Tiong vs. Republic of the Philippines Natividad Ariaga vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., et al. Juan D. Salvador vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., et al. Mariano Cacho vs. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., et al. Jose R. Maglunob, et al. vs. National Abaca & Other Fibers Corp. Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Juez Caluag, et al. Nazario Lagumen vs. Silvino Abasolo, et al. Demetria Flores vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp. In re: Tirso T. Reyes, et al. vs. Milagros Barretto-Datu Consolacion L. Ramos vs. Benigno A. Caoibes Luis T. Clarin vs. Hipolito Alo, et al. Association of Drugstore Employees vs. Arsenio C. Roldan, et al. Philippines International Fair, Inc., et al. vs. Fidel Ibañez, et al. Sebastian C. Palanca vs. Potenciano Pecson, etc., et al. Allied Workers Association of the Philippines vs. Insular Lumber Co. Catalina de los Santos vs. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, et al. Alejandro Samson vs. Andrea B. Andal de Aguila, et al. Ireneo Mirafuentes, et al. vs. Victorio Sabellano, et al. Herminia Q. Kanapi vs. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Director of Lands vs. Anastacio Abadilla, et al. Shell Co. of P.I. Ltd. vs. E. E. Vaño Marvel Building Corporation, et al. vs. Saturnino David Severina Basbano, et al. vs. Ramon Ibañez etc., et al. Tomas Bata Lianco, et al. vs. Deportation Board Santiago Ng vs. Republic of the Philippines Emilio del Campo, et al. vs. Francisco del Campo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Abelo Aragon People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Bangalao, et al. Agustin Barrera, et al. vs. Jose Tampoco, et al. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Juan Fernandez y Otros Francisco Flores, et al. vs. Victor Plasina, et al. Leopoldo Gonzales vs. Secretary of Labor, et al. In re: Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic of the Philippines The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-7312             February 26, 1954

TITO V. TIZON, Y OTROS,recurrentes,
vs.
CECILIO DOROJA Y OTROS,recurridos.

Sres. Estanislao A. Fernandez, Jacinto R. Bohol, Raul C. Muñoz, Jose C. Santos y Artemio Apostol en representacion de los recurridos.
Sres. Claro M. Recto y Leon Ma. Guerrero en representacion de los recurridos.

DIOKNO,J.:

Resultando que el Juzgado de Primera Instancia recurrido, en 23 de diciembre de 1953, ha dictado sentencia ordenando a las juntas de inspectores de eleccion de los precintos Nos. 5B, 8, 12 ,15 y 16 municipal de Matuguinao, todos de la provincia de Samar, que corrijan inmediatamente las respectivas actas de eleccion en la forma que especifica, y denego la peticion relativa a la correccion del acta del precinto 14 de Gandara; y

Considerando que el Juzgado recurrido ha obrado en virtud de la jurisdiccion que la confiere el articulo 154 del Codigo Electoral Revisado; que su resolucion rechazando como pruebade uno de los candidatos en el juicio sumario el testimonio de electores acerca de sus votos para el cargo de representante esta arreglada a derecho, y que su citada sentencia es final e inapelable (Aguilar y Casapaovs. Navarro, 55 Phil., 898; Clarinvs. Juez Alo,supra, p. 432.)

Se deniega el recurso, y se disuelve el interdicto prohibitorio expedido el 11 de diciembre de 1953, con efecto inmediato, con las costas. Asi se ordena.

Paras, Pres., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Labrador and Concepcion, MM.,estan conformes.

Separate Opinions

BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.,dissenting:

Tito V. Tizon and Marciano Lim, together with three others, were candidates for the office of Representatives for the second district of Samar. After elections, copies of all election returns coming from all precincts of said district were delivered to the Provincial Board of Canvassers. Before the Board could finish the canvass, seven cases were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Samar where the correctness of the election returns for six precincts in the municipality of Gandara and one precinct in the municipal district of Matuguinao was challenged with respect to the number of votes appearing therein. It was alleged that the number of votes originally appearing in the returns for candidates Tizon and Lim was erased and a higher number of votes was written for Tizon and a lesser number for Lim. Not all the members of the board of inspectors asked for the correction of the returns, as in six of the precinct involved one inspector objected, and in one two inspectors, in sworn statements submitted by them to the court. Motions to dismiss were filed by respondents one the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but they were denied. Hence this petition forcertiorariandmandamus.

The provision of law invoked by petitioning inspectors in favor of the correction in section 154 of the Revised Election Code which provides that "After the announcement of the result of the election in the polling place, the board of inspectors shall not make any alteration or amendment in any of its statements, unless it be so ordered by competent court." It is contended, and the majority opinion of this Court has so held, that this legal provision applies to the present case even if the nature of the error to be corrected is controversial in character. I dissent from this finding.

I agree with the majority that there need not be unanimity on the part of the inspectors in their desire to seek the correction of an election return from the court under section 154. The majority of them would suffice to bring the matter to court. What I contend is that when one at least of the inspectors disputes the fact that an error has been committed, the issue becomes controversial and it takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the court. The reason is obvious. If the issue is controversial, there might need a long, tedious, and protracted hearing where considerable evidence has to be presented which of necessity will delay the proclamation of the winner to the prejudice of public interest. And the situation is aggravated by the fact that the controversy is made dependent upon secondary evidence. The court is powerless under the law invoked to resort to the ballots. To allow the court to act on such controversy merely on circumstantial evidence would be to set wide open the door to collusion and fraud. In my opinion, the subject which might be cognizable under section 154 merely refers to errors that are clerical and which do not involve any argument or dispute. To hold otherwise would b e a flagrant encroachment on the functions of the House Electoral Tribunal.

We do not need to go far to look for precedents. Right in this jurisdiction we have one which is on all fours with the present controversy. I refer to the case ofBenitez vs. Paredes and Dizon, 52 Phil., 10. In that case, where Tomas Dizon and Eulogio Benitez were candidates for governor for the Province of Laguna, Dizon brought an action No. 1 of Longos to correct the copies of the election returns of that precinct so as to show that 157 instead of 207 votes were erroneously counted and adjudicated to Eulogio Benitez. In view of lack of unanimity on the part of the inspectors in so far as the correction of the return is concerned, this Court ruled that the respondent Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case. This Court, in a lucid language, said: "From the moment that the inspectors or any of them do not agree with the corrections of the returns, the case becomes contentious and, as such, requires the presentation of evidence in order that the court may determine on what ground to grant or not to grant authority to amend the returns in question. Such procedure must, of necessity, be subject to contingencies which will prevent the prompt termination of elections, which must be avoided in the interest of public good."

The law on this matter remains the same. This ruling is still a good law. The majority opinion has not advanced any plausible reason why it should be disregarded in the present case. I vote for granting the petition.