Samson v. Estenzo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Dr. Cesar Samson and Mrs. Asuncion Conui Omega were candidates for city councilor in Ormoc City during the general elections of November 10, 1959. Following the initial canvass, Dr. Samson was declared elected with a three-vote plurality over Mrs. Omega. 2. Procedural History: Mrs. Omega filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Leyte seeking a recount of votes in Precincts Nos. 17 and 28, citing discrepancies between election returns and Commission on Elections certifications. She later amended the petition to include Precinct No. 8 due to alleged conflicting vote tallies for Dr. Samson. The Court of First Instance ordered the Board of Canvassers to open ballot boxes and recount the votes, enjoining further canvassing. A motion for reconsideration was denied, and the recount was scheduled. 3. The Petition: Dr. Samson filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to halt the enforcement of the Court of First Instance's orders. He argued that the orders were contrary to law, specifically that the recount should be conducted by the court itself, not the Board of Canvassers, and that the cited sections of the Revised Election Code were inapplicable to the discrepancies alleged, which involved election returns versus certificates, not conflicting authentic copies of election returns.
Issue(s)
Did the Court of First Instance lawfully order the Board of Canvassers to open ballot boxes and recount votes for the purpose of determining the elected candidate, based on conflicts between election returns and certifications under Section 153 of the Revised Election Code?
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders complained of and made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent. The Court ruled that the orders were contrary to law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the orders issued by the Court of First Instance (CFI) were contrary to law. The recount of votes authorized under Sections 163 and 168 of Republic Act No. 180 (Revised Election Code) must be made by the Court of First Instance itself, and not by the Board of Canvassers, as erroneously ordered by the respondent Judge. The Court emphasized that the purpose of such a recount is solely to determine which is the true statement or the true result of the count of the votes cast, and not to determine "who is the elected candidate," as incorrectly stated in the CFI's order. Furthermore, the Court reiterated its prior ruling in Jose Parlade, et al. vs. Hon. Perfecto Quicho, et al. (G.R. No. L-16259, December 29, 1959), holding that Sections 163 and 168 are inapplicable to situations where the alleged conflicts exist between the election returns (or statement of count) and the certificate mentioned in Section 153 of Republic Act No. 180. Thus, the CFI exceeded its authority and misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the Revised Election Code.
Main Doctrine
The Court of First Instance, not the Board of Canvassers, is authorized to conduct a recount of votes under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code when there is a conflict between election returns and other authentic copies of election results, but only to determine the true statement of the count, not to determine who is the elected candidate. Furthermore, Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code are inapplicable when the conflict is between election returns and a certificate mentioned in Section 153 of the same Act.