Abrigo v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the 1969 elections for Congressman in Eastern Samar, petitioner Felipe J. Abrigo and respondent Vicente O. Valley were candidates. Allegations of falsification of election returns surfaced concerning several precincts, purportedly showing significantly fewer votes for petitioner Abrigo and more for respondent Valley than in the genuine returns. Ballot boxes were also alleged to have been tampered with. Procedural History: Respondent Valley filed a petition for recount in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Eastern Samar. The CFI judge issued a preliminary injunction directing the provincial board of canvassers to desist from proclaiming petitioner Abrigo as Congressman-elect. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) also issued a resolution directing the board to refrain from proclamation. The Petition: Petitioner Abrigo filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Supreme Court, seeking to stop the CFI proceedings, nullify the injunction, annul the Comelec resolution, and compel his proclamation. The Supreme Court issued a cease-and-desist order against the CFI judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance can validly act upon a petition for recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code absent an averment that the canvassing board or Comelec has found a discrepancy between two authentic copies of the election returns, and upon mere presentation of photographs of copies of the election returns which photographs reflect apparent alterations and tampering of the originals. Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to resolve the question of falsification or mere discrepancy before it is resolved by the board of canvassers or Comelec. Whether the canvassing board or Comelec, having acquired priority of jurisdiction, can abdicate its duty to hear and determine the question of discrepancy. Whether the copies for the municipal treasurer of Oras can be considered authentic returns given apparent alterations and tampering. Whether the alleged tampering of ballot boxes warrants a full-dress investigation in the present proceedings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared the CFI judge without jurisdiction to entertain the petition for recount, set aside the injunctive writ and the Comelec directive enjoining proclamation, directed the CFI judge to dismiss the recount petition, and ordered the provincial board of canvassers to convene and proclaim petitioner Felipe J. Abrigo as the duly elected Member of the House of Representatives for Eastern Samar.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance for recount: The Court held that Section 163 of the Revised Election Code requires an initial finding by the provincial board of canvassers of a discrepancy between authentic copies of election returns that affects the election result. The authority of the CFI to order a recount is conditioned upon this prerequisite. Presenting photographs of allegedly tampered copies, without producing the authentic copies themselves, does not satisfy this requirement. The board of canvassers must be given the opportunity to rule on the existence of discrepancies between genuine returns. Therefore, the CFI judge acted without jurisdiction in entertaining Valley's petition for recount based solely on photographs. On the concurrence of jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that the Revised Election Code delineates specific procedural mechanics. It cannot subscribe to the view that courts of first instance should have concurrent jurisdiction to determine falsification or discrepancy before the board of canvassers or Comelec has ruled on it. The statutory scheme grants the CFI a delimited power, which arises only after the board of canvassers has made a determination regarding discrepancies in genuine returns. This principle is a restrictive construction of the court's authority to recount votes. On priority of jurisdiction: Even if concurrence of jurisdiction were conceded, the canvassing board and Comelec acquired priority of jurisdiction. The established rule is that the body which first acquires jurisdiction has the power to continue and decide the dispute. Allowing simultaneous cognizance by two bodies would foster confusion and harassment. The board of canvassers and Comelec cannot abdicate their statutory duty to hear and determine questions of discrepancy. On the authenticity of the municipal treasurer's copies: The Court found that the copies for the municipal treasurer of Oras, from which respondent Valley's petition for recount was based, were not authentic returns. These copies, when compared with the originals for Comelec and the carbon copies for the provincial treasurer, showed apparent alterations and tampering, particularly concerning the votes for Congressman. The changes were not initialed by the board of inspectors and were patent to the naked eye. A falsified or spurious return amounts to no return at all. On the alleged tampering of ballot boxes: While the tampering of ballot boxes was alleged, the Court noted that the ballot boxes were not produced for inspection. The Court stated that the present proceedings were not the proper forum for a full-dress investigation into this matter, as sufficient reasons already existed in the record to decide the case based on the election returns.
Main Doctrine
A petition for recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code is valid only if there is an initial finding by the board of canvassers of a discrepancy between authentic copies of election returns, and such discrepancy affects the election result. Photographs of allegedly tampered copies are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance for a recount.