Acain v. Board of Canvassers
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of November 10, 1959, for Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Carmen, Agusan, Jose Malimit and Esteban Degamo were candidates for Mayor, and Vicente Acain and Felino Pelarca for Vice-Mayor. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Malimit as mayor-elect with a plurality of 45 votes over Degamo. The proclamation for vice-mayor was suspended at Acain's behest due to his name not appearing in election returns for two precincts. Three members of the board objected to Malimit's proclamation, alleging tampering of the election return for precinct No. 6, which allegedly increased Malimit's votes from 39 to 139. Procedural History: The issue was brought to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which found the tampering claim true and the other five board members guilty of falsification for stating the objectors were absent. The COMELEC annulled the proclamation, ordered a recanvass, suspended the five board members, and authorized Atty. Villamor Dizon to appoint substitutes. Malimit's petition to the Supreme Court to annul the COMELEC resolution was dismissed for lack of merit. A new board of canvassers, with five substitute members, conducted a recanvass using the provincial treasurer's copy of the precinct No. 6 return and proclaimed Esteban Degamo and Felino Palarca as Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively. The Petition: On January 4, 1960, Malimit and Acain filed a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul the proclamation of Degamo and Palarca and prevent them from assuming office. They argued the substitute board members were not electors of Carmen belonging to the party of the suspended members, and their request for a suspension of the recanvass to secure a vote recount was denied, depriving them of a reasonable opportunity. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction on January 7, 1960. However, Degamo and Palarca had already assumed office on January 1, 1960. Malimit had also filed a quo warranto petition and an election protest against Degamo in the Court of First Instance of Agusan.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari should be granted to annul the proclamation of Esteban Degamo and Felino Palarca. Whether the assumption of office by Degamo and Palarca renders the petition moot. Whether an injunction is the proper remedy to question the title of officers who have already assumed office. Whether the substitute members of the board of canvassers were appointed in accordance with law. Whether the petitioners were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to seek a recount of votes.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the petition: The Court held that the question of preventing Degamo and Palarca from assuming office had become moot because they had already assumed their respective offices before the petition was filed. The assumption of office, being a consummated act, rendered the prayer to prevent them from assuming office untenable. On the propriety of injunction: The Court reiterated that an injunction is a remedy to restrain an act about to be done, not to undo what has already been consummated. Since Degamo and Palarca had already assumed office, they possessed at least the rights of de facto officers. Their title to office could only be contested directly through a writ of quo warranto or an election protest, not indirectly by questioning the regularity of their proclamation. An injunction is not an appropriate remedy for the removal of an officer or the reinstatement of one removed without cause. On the appointment of substitute board members: The Court clarified that Section 167 of the Revised Election Code, requiring registered voters of the same party as excluded members, applies only when the excluded members are candidates themselves. It does not apply to temporary substitutes appointed due to the suspension of members for irregularities committed in the discharge of their duties, as in this case. On the opportunity for vote recount: The Court found that the petitioners had ample time, from November 16 to December 7, 1959 (over twenty days), to seek a recount of votes from the Court of First Instance of Agusan after the first canvass. Their failure to do so within this period meant they could not claim they were deprived of a reasonable opportunity. On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance: The Court held that by filing a petition for a writ of quo warranto and an election protest on December 17 and 28, 1959, respectively, the Court of First Instance of Agusan acquired exclusive authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of Degamo and the validity of the proclamation. The Supreme Court, in the present petition filed on January 4, 1960, could not determine these questions without encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the lower court.
Main Doctrine
An injunction is not an appropriate remedy to undo what has already been consummated, such as the assumption of office by elected officials, and the title of de facto officers may only be contested directly through quo warranto or election protest, not indirectly by questioning the regularity of their proclamation.