Alido v. Alar
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Marcos Alido, a candidate for councilor in the November 10, 1959 elections in Borongan, Samar, sought certified copies of the Election Results (Commission on Elections Form No. 8) from the respondent, Faustino Alar, the Municipal Treasurer. Alido claimed these results were public documents and that the Treasurer's refusal to provide them left him without a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. The respondent Treasurer asserted that the Revised Election Code did not mandate the issuance of such certificates by his office and that the form was intended for specific internal purposes by the Commission on Elections, not for general public distribution by municipal treasurers. 2. Procedural History: Alido initiated a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar, seeking to compel the Municipal Treasurer to issue the requested certified copies of the election results. The CFI ruled in favor of Alido, ordering the Treasurer to furnish the copies within twenty-four hours and to pay costs. The respondent Municipal Treasurer appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The respondent-appellant's sole assignment of error on appeal was that the trial court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court reviewed the case, considering the nature and intended purpose of Commission on Elections Form No. 8, which was to enable the municipal treasurer to provide unofficial public releases of election results and to transmit official results to the Commission on Elections. The Court found no specific law obligating the Treasurer to issue certified copies of this form upon demand, nor did it find that Alido had a clear right to such a document, especially without a stated purpose or pending election protest. The Court concluded that mandamus was inappropriate as the duty was not clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law, and other remedies, such as recourse to the Commission on Elections or a subpoena duces tecum in a proper legal proceeding, might be available. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the CFI's decision, denying the writ of mandamus and dismissing the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Treasurer of Borongan, Samar, can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue certified copies of COMELEC Form No. 8 (Election Results) to a candidate who demanded them. Whether a candidate for councilor has a clear legal right to demand certified copies of election results contained in COMELEC Form No. 8 from the Municipal Treasurer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the writ of mandamus. The case was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the writ of mandamus was improperly issued because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the issuance of the certified copies of COMELEC Form No. 8. The Court emphasized that mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal right and a corresponding clear legal duty. In this case, no law was cited that explicitly enjoins the Municipal Treasurer to issue such certificates to a candidate upon demand. The Court noted that the petitioner did not specify the purpose for which the copies were needed, and if for purposes of election irregularities, the proper procedure would be to seek a subpoena duces tecum from the court. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that disobedience to COMELEC directives should first be brought to the attention of the COMELEC itself for appropriate action. On Issue 2: The Court found that the petitioner, as a candidate for councilor, did not possess a clear legal right to demand certified copies of the election results from the Municipal Treasurer. While election results are of public concern, this general interest does not automatically translate into a right to demand certified copies from the Municipal Treasurer in the absence of a specific legal provision. The Court explained that COMELEC Form No. 8 was intended for specific purposes: enabling the municipal treasurer to make an unofficial release of election results to the public and to transmit official results to the COMELEC. Compelling the treasurer to issue certified copies to any inhabitant upon demand, without legal basis, would unduly burden his office and was not the intention of the COMELEC directive. The Court reiterated that the right asserted must be clear and the duty enjoined must be clearly defined by law or official station, citing Tabique v. Duvall.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus is not a remedy for every grievance. To be entitled to the extraordinary writ of mandamus, the petitioner must show a clear and unmistakable right to the performance of the act sought to be compelled and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to perform such act. The mere fact of being a candidate or a member of the public does not, in itself, confer a right to demand certified copies of election results without a specific legal provision authorizing such demand or a clear showing of necessity for a pending legal proceeding.