Calo v. Enage
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns alleged discrepancies in election returns from the November 14, 1967 elections in Agusan for the positions of Governor, Vice Governor, and provincial board members. The petitioners were candidates for these offices, while the respondents were also candidates, primarily from the Nacionalista Party. 2. Procedural History: Following the election, respondent candidates filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Agusan, alleging that their copies of the election returns, marked 'COPY FOR THE NACIONALISTA PARTY,' showed a different and larger number of votes for them compared to the copies transmitted to the Provincial Treasurer. Respondent Judge Manuel L. Enage issued an order directing a judicial recount of votes in specific municipalities and restraining the provincial board of canvassers from proceeding with the canvass. The petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek to annul the order of the respondent judge, arguing that he acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. They contend that a judicial recount is not warranted under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code based on discrepancies between the Nacionalista Party's copy of the election returns and the copy held by the Provincial Treasurer, especially since the provincial board of canvassers had not yet commenced its canvass. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order to allow the canvassing to proceed while it considered the case.
Issue(s)
Whether a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code may be ordered based on a discrepancy between the election return copy furnished to a political party and the copy sent to the Provincial Treasurer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the respondent judge and directed the provincial board of canvassers to proceed with the proclamation of the winning candidates.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the respondent judge's order violated the settled interpretation of Section 163 of the Revised Election Code (REC). Section 163 provides for a judicial recount only when 'another copy or other authentic copies' of the statement submitted to the board show different results that affect the election outcome. Applying the ruling in Acuña v. Golez (G.R. No. L-25399), the Court held that the phrase 'authentic copies' refers strictly to the four copies mentioned in Section 150 of the REC: the copies for the ballot box, the municipal treasurer, the provincial treasurer, and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Although a COMELEC resolution authorized providing copies to the two major political parties to discourage tampering, these extra copies are not prescribed by the Code and cannot serve as a legal basis for a judicial recount. The Court emphasized that Section 163 must be construed restrictively because its misuse could delay the proclamation of winners and the commencement of terms of office, effectively allowing losing candidates to hold over. Furthermore, allowing party copies to trigger recounts would invite candidates to tamper with their own copies to create artificial discrepancies and stall the democratic process. Therefore, as the discrepancy here involved a party copy and not one of the four statutory copies, the judicial recount was unauthorized.
Main Doctrine
A discrepancy between a copy of the election returns furnished to a political party and the copy in the hands of the provincial treasurer does not constitute a sufficient basis for a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code. Only discrepancies found among the authentic copies of the election returns as required by law justify a recount.