Purisima v. Salanga
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: During the November 12, 1963 election for Provincial Board Member of Ilocos Sur, Amante P. Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were candidates. Following the election, the provincial board of canvassers began tallying the votes. Purisima observed that forty-one election returns contained apparent erasures and superimpositions of votes for Cordero. When compared with copies from the Nacionalista Party, a discrepancy of 5,042 votes in favor of Cordero was identified. Despite Purisima's request to suspend the canvass due to these irregularities, the board denied it, proceeding to declare Cordero the winner with 41,229 votes to Purisima's 39,372. 2. Procedural History: Following the proclamation of Cordero as the winner, Purisima filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on November 29, 1963, seeking to annul the canvass and proclamation. The Comelec issued a resolution on November 30, annulling the canvass and proclamation concerning Purisima and Cordero. Subsequently, on December 10, Purisima filed a petition for a recount in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Ilocos Sur. Motions to dismiss were filed by the board of canvassers and Cordero. The CFI dismissed Purisima's petition for recount on December 27. On December 28, Cordero filed a motion with the Comelec for the resumption of the canvass. Purisima then filed a motion for reconsideration of the CFI's dismissal order and a petition for a preliminary injunction to halt another canvass. 3. The Petition: Purisima filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court on January 17, 1964, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CFI in dismissing his recount petition and by the Comelec in potentially ordering a resumption of the canvass. He argued that the CFI erred in not considering the Commission on Elections' copies of the returns, which also showed discrepancies, as these copies are considered authentic. Purisima contended that the patent erasures and superimpositions on the returns necessitated a suspension of the canvass and a judicial recount to ascertain the true will of the electorate. He sought to have the CFI's dismissal order set aside and to enjoin the Comelec from ordering a resumption of the canvass until the recount proceedings were concluded.
Issue(s)
Whether the requisites for a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code were met. Whether the COMELEC's copies of election returns can be the basis for a petition for recount even if not submitted to the board of canvassers. Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for recount.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Amante Purisima. The dismissal of the petition for recount was set aside, and the respondent Judge was ordered to proceed with the petition for recount. The COMELEC and the Provincial Board of Canvassers were enjoined from ordering or holding another canvass and proclamation as between Purisima and Cordero until after the termination of the recount proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the requisites for judicial recount: The Court clarified that a candidate affected can file a petition for recount independently of the provincial board of canvassers. It was undisputed that a discrepancy existed, and the number of votes involved was sufficient to alter the election result. The Court noted that the provincial board of canvassers did not dispute the existence of the discrepancy in their motion to dismiss, merely raising the defense that the recount was up to the court. On the use of COMELEC copies: The Court held that the COMELEC's copies of election returns are considered authentic copies within the meaning of Section 163 of the Revised Election Code. Even if the Nacionalista Party copies were not a valid basis, the COMELEC's copies were alleged to reflect the same discrepancy with the Provincial Treasurer's copies. The Court found that the trial court erred in ruling that the COMELEC's copies had no application because they were not submitted to the board of canvassers. The record showed that the board's refusal to suspend the canvass prevented Purisima from securing and submitting these copies. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that it was imperative for the board of canvassers to suspend the canvass due to patent erasures and superimpositions on the face of the election returns. Their failure to do so and their proceeding with the canvass and proclamation notwithstanding these defects, without awaiting proper remedies, constituted a nullity. The COMELEC itself had declared the canvass and proclamation null and void. Therefore, the respondent court's refusal to consider the COMELEC's copies, despite the admitted irregularities and the significant discrepancy in votes, was deemed a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that election laws should be interpreted to give effect to the electorate's will, and patent irregularities in returns necessitate comparison with other copies and, if necessary, a recount to ascertain the true result.
Main Doctrine
A petition for recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code may be based on discrepancies between the Provincial Treasurer's copy of election returns and the Commission on Elections' copies, even if the latter were not submitted to the board of canvassers, especially when the board's refusal to suspend the canvass prevented such submission. A canvass or proclamation made notwithstanding patent defects in election returns, without awaiting proper remedies, is null and void.