Lim v. Maglanoc
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the November 10, 1959 elections for Mayor of Agdangan, Quezon Province, Jose I. Lim and Pedro Francia were the primary candidates. Initial canvassing of election returns from six out of nine precincts showed Francia leading Lim. Discrepancies arose in the remaining three precincts: Precinct No. 1 had a vote count for Lim written as "one hundred seven" in words but "117" in figures; Precinct No. 3 had an illegible written vote count for Francia; and Precinct No. 6 showed Francia's votes as "seventy-nine" in words but "19" in figures. 2. Procedural History: Following these discrepancies, the municipal board of canvassers elevated the matter to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon Province for a recount, as provided by the Revised Election Code. However, due to the board's failure to file the requisite pleading, petitioner Jose I. Lim filed a Petition to Recount with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on December 1, 1959. The respondent Judge Enrique Maglanoc issued the injunction, restraining further action and proclamation. On December 22, 1959, the respondent Judge issued an order stating that the court would not count the ballots from Precincts 1, 3, and 6 but would base corrections solely on the tally sheets. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, arguing for the necessity of counting the ballots, was denied on January 22, 1960. 3. The Petition: This original action for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction was filed by Jose I. Lim, alleging that the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the December 22, 1959 order and denying the motion for reconsideration. The petition argues that the lower court should recount the ballots cast in Precincts Nos. 1, 3, and 6, rather than relying solely on the tally sheets. The Supreme Court granted the writ, modifying the lower court's order to direct a recount of ballots only in Precinct No. 1, as the discrepancies there were found to substantially affect the election outcome, while the issues in Precincts 3 and 6 were resolved by certifications from the Provincial Treasurer and the Commission on Elections, respectively.
Issue(s)
Whether a Court of First Instance (CFI) is authorized to order a judicial recount of actual ballots when there is a discrepancy between the votes expressed in words and those expressed in figures within a single election return.
Ruling
The writ of certiorari is granted. The order of the respondent court dated December 22, 1959, is modified, directing the said court to recount the ballots cast in Precinct No. 1 only, for the purpose of determining the true result of the count of votes cast therein for the position of Municipal Mayor, and for further proceedings consistent with the terms of this decision and the law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the discrepancy in Precinct No. 1, where the petitioner's votes were 'one hundred seven' in words and '117' in figures, justified a judicial recount. Applying the principles in Parlade v. Quicho, the Court emphasized that Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code (REC) allow for a recount when there are contradictions within the election statement itself, such as words contradicting figures. The Court reasoned that although general statutory construction often favors words over figures, the specific election law provisions create a necessity ('ex necessitate rei') to find the exact number when such conflicts arise. The Court clarified that the integrity of the board of inspectors is a 'prima facie' presumption, but where reports are internally inconsistent, the court must intervene to find the true count. In contrast, for Precinct No. 3, the Provincial Treasurer's certification that the return was 'clear and legible' removed the necessity for a recount, as mere claims of illegibility by canvassers are insufficient. For Precinct No. 6, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) certification that the words and figures were consistent ('seventy-nine' and '79') also rendered a recount unnecessary. Ultimately, because the 10-vote discrepancy in Precinct No. 1 could result in either a tie or a win for Francia, the opening of the ballot boxes for that specific precinct was legally mandated to ensure the accuracy of the proclamation.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the order of the respondent court, directing it to recount the ballots cast in Precinct No. 1 only, for the purpose of determining the true result of the count of votes cast therein for the position of Municipal Mayor, and for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the decision and the law.