Cawa v. Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners sought to set aside a decision ordering the municipal board of canvassers of Buenavista, Quezon, to proceed with the canvassing of election returns for Precinct 2-A, based on its alleged amended form, and to proclaim the winning candidate for municipal mayor. Petitioners also sought to set aside an order denying a motion for reconsideration and granting immediate execution. Procedural History: Eustaquio R. Cawa and Primitivo R. Pasta were the candidates for Mayor. During canvassing, discrepancies were found in the election return for Precinct 2-A: Cawa received 62 votes in words and 102 in figures, while Pasta received 102 in words and 62 in figures. Other copies of the return showed Cawa with 102 votes and Pasta with 62 votes. The municipal board of canvassers suspended the canvass. Cawa, with election inspectors, filed a petition for authority to correct the return or, alternatively, for a recount. The trial court denied the correction, stating the chairman and poll clerk did not constitute a majority, and denied the recount unless the municipal board of canvassers was joined. Cawa amended his petition. Primitivo R. Pasta filed a petition for mandamus, praying the board be compelled to count votes and to consider only votes written in words for Precinct 2-A. The trial court denied Cawa's amended petition. The majority of the municipal board of canvassers filed a separate petition for recount, which was also initially not entertained. Cawa filed another petition for recounting. The court consolidated the three recount cases and the mandamus case. The trial court dismissed the recount cases but granted the mandamus, ordering the board to canvass based on the election return for Precinct 2-A before its alleged amendment, awarding damages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners sought to set aside the decision and order of the respondent judge, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction and for the trial court to proceed with the recount of votes.
Issue(s)
Whether the court is mandated to recount votes when all requisites under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code are present. Whether the remedy of mandamus is available while a petition for recount is pending. Whether a writ of execution may be granted without a hearing before the finality of a mandamus judgment. Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered it to proceed with the recount of votes as prayed for by the petitioners in their several motions. Costs were against respondent Primitivo R. Pasta.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the court is mandated to recount votes when all requisites under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code are present: The Court held that the law is explicit that in case of contradictions or discrepancies between copies of the same election statements or returns, the Court of First Instance, upon motion of the board or any candidate affected, may proceed to recount the votes cast in the precinct involved. The facts presented clearly showed discrepancies not only on the face of the municipal treasurer's copy of the election return for Precinct 2-A but also in conflict with the returns in the possession of the provincial treasurer and the Commission on Elections. The Court found that the trial court erred in ignoring the petitions for recount, as a candidate affected is authorized to file such a petition. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the recount is to determine the true result of the election, and technicalities should not defeat this intention. On the issue of whether the remedy of mandamus is available while a petition for recount is pending: The Court ruled that mandamus lies only when a party unlawfully neglects a duty or unlawfully excludes another from a right, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. In this case, the municipal board of canvassers wanted to perform their duty but were prevented by the discrepancy. They took the authorized step of filing a motion for recount. Therefore, mandamus was not the proper remedy, as a specific legal remedy (recount) was available and pursued. The trial court erred in sustaining the petition for mandamus. On the issue of whether a writ of execution may be granted without a hearing before the finality of a mandamus judgment: The Court implicitly addressed this by setting aside the order granting immediate execution. The decision focuses on the erroneous grant of mandamus and the denial of recount, rendering the execution issue moot in the context of the final disposition. On the issue of whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the respondent judge committed errors in handling the petitions. He erred in denying the initial petition for correction and recount on technical grounds, in dismissing the subsequent petitions for recount filed by authorized parties, and in granting the writ of mandamus when a more appropriate remedy (recount) was available and should have been pursued. The judge's reasoning that he could not appreciate ballots differently from election inspectors was also deemed erroneous, as a recount is a summary mathematical process, not an appreciation of ballot validity. The judge's actions, therefore, constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's decision granting a writ of mandamus and ordering the municipal board of canvassers to proceed with the canvassing based on an amended election return. Instead, the Court ordered a recount of the votes, emphasizing that the remedy of recount under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code is summary and intended to resolve discrepancies promptly, not involving appreciation of ballots. The Court also clarified that mandamus is not the proper remedy when a specific legal remedy like recount is available.