Peña v. Tengco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the November 14, 1967 elections for Councilor of Lipa City, discrepancies were alleged in the votes obtained by petitioner Rogelio Magsino and respondent Wenceslao Vivas. Magsino sought a recount, and the respondent judge initially granted it for specific precincts, ordering the opening of ballot boxes and a count in his presence. Subsequently, the judge set aside this order, citing a rule against using copies of statements given to political parties as a basis for recount. Procedural History: Respondent Wenceslao Vivas also petitioned for a recount in precinct 94, claiming a discrepancy between his actual votes and the election returns. This petition was denied. Later, all members of the board of election inspectors for precinct 94 petitioned for the correction of erroneous election returns for Magsino, attributing the error to fatigue and poor conditions. The judge granted this petition and, motu proprio, also directed the correction of Vivas' votes from 60 to 64, citing Vivas' statement during a previous recount. Magsino's motion to reconsider the correction for Vivas was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed an original petition for certiorari with a prayer for a preliminary injunction, seeking to nullify the portion of the December 6, 1967 order directing the correction of election returns with respect to respondent Wenceslao Vivas.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the correction of election returns for respondent Wenceslao Vivas. Whether the correction of election returns for petitioner Rogelio Magsino was proper.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The order of the respondent judge dated December 6, 1967, in Election Case No. 1895, insofar as it directs the correction of the election returns with respect to respondent Wenceslao Vivas, is declared null and void and the restraining order is made permanent. The correction of the election returns for petitioner Rogelio Magsino is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of correcting election returns for petitioner Rogelio Magsino: The Court found the respondent judge's order to correct the election returns for petitioner Magsino to be well-taken and perceived no abuse of discretion. This was based on the unanimous petition of all members of the board of inspectors, attesting to an error in the original returns. The Court noted that this action aligned with Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, which allows for correction upon the unanimous consent of the board members. Furthermore, the judge had satisfied himself of the truth of the petition by opening the ballot boxes and conducting a recount, which confirmed the error. Thus, the order to amend the returns for Magsino was justified. On the grave abuse of discretion regarding respondent Wenceslao Vivas' votes: The Court found grave abuse of discretion when the respondent judge, in his order of December 6, 1967, directed the correction of the election returns for Wenceslao Vivas from 60 to 64 votes. The basis for this correction was Vivas' own statement during a previous recount (Election Case 1888) that he obtained 64 votes, which was "made of record by him." However, the judge's order in Election Case 1888 did not make a finding that a recount for Vivas actually tallied 64 votes. The board of inspectors, which unanimously sought correction for Magsino, did not move for a correction concerning Vivas' votes. The Court held that using Vivas' self-serving statement as a basis for correction would elevate an averment to an established fact, especially since this correction would alter the election outcome, potentially placing Vivas ahead of Magsino. Adherence to form over substance is not exalted when it leads to such a situation, and the judge's action went beyond the scope of the board's petition and established facts from a formal recount.
Main Doctrine
A court commits grave abuse of discretion when it orders the correction of election returns based solely on the self-serving statement of a candidate during a recount, without a formal petition or finding by the board of inspectors, especially when such correction would alter the election outcome.