Guanio v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners sought to compel the faculty committee on regent election to prepare official ballots for the alumni regent election, setting March 20, 1931, as the closing date, eliminating candidate Carlos P. Romulo, and not counting votes for him. The University President had initially proclaimed March 27, 1931, as the closing date. The faculty committee initially changed this to March 20, 1931, citing technical difficulties, but later agreed to follow the President's date after his communication asserting his consistent exercise of this power since the first election and the printing and distribution of ballots with the March 27th date. Procedural History: The case was initiated in the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for the court to compel the faculty committee to prepare official ballots with March 20, 1931, as the closing date, to eliminate Carlos P. Romulo's name, and to not count votes for him.
Issue(s)
Whether the faculty committee on regent election has the authority to fix the date for the closing of the polls in the election of the alumni regent. Whether Carlos P. Romulo is disqualified from being a candidate for alumni regent. Whether the faculty committee can be compelled to erase the name of Carlos P. Romulo from the official ballots. Whether the faculty committee can be enjoined from counting votes for Carlos P. Romulo. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, particularly concerning the deletion of a candidate's name.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied, and the case is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to fix the closing date of the election: The Court held that the fixing of the date for the closing of the polls in the election of the alumni regent falls within the executive powers of the President of the University. This power has been consistently exercised by the President since the first election, and such long-standing practice, respected by the board of regents through tacit approval, should be upheld. The duties assigned to the faculty committee on regent elections are clerical and do not include the power to fix the election date. Therefore, mandamus will not lie to compel the committee to change a date fixed by the President, as the committee lacks the authority to do so, and the power to fix the date is within the President's sound discretion. On the disqualification of Carlos P. Romulo: The Court found that Carlos P. Romulo was not disqualified from being a candidate for alumni regent. Although he was a professorial lecturer, the evidence showed he tendered his resignation effective November 1, 1930, and his successor was appointed. This was considered a tacit acceptance of his resignation, rendering the disqualification provision in Section 4 of the University Charter inapplicable to him at the time of his nomination. Even if there were doubts, the Court noted that the eligibility of a candidate cannot be questioned in a mandamus proceeding to compel the removal of their name from the ballot if election officers acted in good faith within their authority. On compelling the erasure of Romulo's name and enjoining the counting of his votes: The Court ruled that mandamus will not lie to compel election officers to rescind an action already taken in good faith and within the scope of their authority, such as placing a candidate's name on the ballot. Furthermore, the prayer to enjoin the counting of votes for Romulo was considered an application for a preliminary injunction, which the Supreme Court held it had no authority to grant in the form presented. The Court reiterated that mandamus is not a proper remedy to undo acts already done. On the Supreme Court's jurisdiction: The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Section 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants concurrent jurisdiction with Courts of First Instance in cases of unlawful neglect or exclusion from office. However, it clarified that mandamus would only lie if the committee had unlawfully and negligently included Romulo's name knowing he was disqualified and not duly nominated, and if proceedings were instituted before the ballots were distributed. In this case, the facts did not support such a scenario, and the election officers acted in good faith. On exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had not exhausted administrative remedies by appealing to the University Board of Regents, which had the authority to amend election regulations. This failure, in itself, was sufficient reason to deny the relief sought, absent other compelling reasons.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not lie to compel an officer to perform an act which is without authority or power, or where the duty or power is doubtful. Furthermore, mandamus will not compel an officer to undo a previous act already done, especially when it involves the exercise of sound discretion.