Board of Election Inspectors v. Sison
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the integrity of election returns from the second precinct of Boñgabon, Mindoro. Specifically, the petitioners, a majority of the election inspectors for that precinct, sought to correct or amend the election returns forwarded to the provincial treasurer. This action was prompted by alleged irregularities in the preparation of the statements, including the inclusion of an arbitrary number of votes for the office of provincial governor, and a discrepancy between the copy sent to the provincial treasurer and other copies. 2. Procedural History: Following a ruling by the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro on the inspectors' petition to correct the election returns, and prior to the filing of a bill of exceptions, the petitioners initiated these mandamus proceedings. The lower court had previously denied the petition to amend the election returns forwarded to the provincial treasurer. The petitioners then sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to proceed with the hearing and decide the petition on its merits, and a mandatory injunction against the provincial board of canvassers to prevent them from proceeding with the canvass using only the incomplete inspectors' statement. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus and a preliminary mandatory injunction. They sought to compel the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro to hear and decide their petition to correct election returns on its merits, and to order the provincial board of canvassers to abstain from canvassing with an incomplete statement, instead requiring them to consider all four copies of the statement or the amended statement. The core legal questions raised were whether a judge can be compelled by mandamus to decide an election inspectors' petition to correct returns a certain way, and whether a prohibitory injunction could compel the provincial board of canvassers to refrain from canvassing with incomplete returns.
Issue(s)
May the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro be compelled by mandamus to decide the election inspectors' petition to correct their returns a certain way, under section 465 of the Election Law? Will a prohibitory injunction lie to compel the provincial board of canvassers of Mindoro to refrain from making the canvass without taking into account all four of the copies of the returns, or the amended returns as authorized by the lower court? Does the act of a majority of the board of inspectors in signing and filing a petition for permission to amend the copy of the certificate of votes sent to the provincial treasurer constitute an act of the board of inspectors as a body, thereby granting the respondent judge jurisdiction?
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The writ of mandamus prayed for against the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro will not lie. The mandatory injunction prayed for against the provincial board of canvassers of Mindoro is also denied. The preliminary injunction issued by this court is vacated, and the provincial board of canvassers is ordered to meet and make a recount of all votes cast for provincial governor and make the proper proclamation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mandamus against the CFI Judge: The Court held that the power vested in the Judge of the Court of First Instance by Section 465 of the Election Law to order the correction of election returns is discretionary and administrative, intended to secure correctness. Rulings made in pursuance of this power, whether granting or denying the petition to correct, are interlocutory. Therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot compel the judge to use his discretion to decide in a specific way or to admit evidence for the purpose of deciding the incident on its merits, especially when the judge has already heard both parties and considered their pleadings and exhibits within the summary proceeding. The Court reiterated that the denial of such a petition is unappealable and compelling the judge to admit evidence would be a dilatory proceeding contrary to the summary nature of the incident and the policy of timely proclamation of election results. The Court distinguished this from cases where a protest is dismissed on purely technical grounds, which may be corrected by mandamus. On the issue of prohibitory injunction against the Provincial Board of Canvassers: The Court ruled that Section 469 of the Election Law imposes a ministerial duty on the provincial board of canvassers to examine all statements sent to the provincial treasurer. Since the court below had denied the petition for the correction of the returns sent to the provincial treasurer, the PBC cannot be compelled to take into account other copies of the returns or amended returns. The canvass must proceed based on the official returns as submitted to the provincial treasurer, unless corrected by a competent court order, which was not granted in this instance. On the jurisdiction of the CFI Judge and the act of the majority of the board: While the dissenting opinions argued that the act of a majority of the board should be considered the act of the board itself, granting the CFI judge jurisdiction, the majority opinion, in denying the mandamus, implicitly upheld the respondent judge's discretion. The majority noted that if the third inspector objected to the correction on grounds of irregularities, it would necessitate the production of evidence and potentially convert the incident into an election contest, which is beyond the summary nature of a petition for correction of returns. The Court emphasized that the decision on the incident of correcting returns is not a final decision on the number of votes, which must be decided in a proper election contest. Therefore, the CFI judge acted within his discretionary powers, and mandamus would not lie to control that discretion.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a judge to decide a petition for the correction of election returns in a specific way, as the power to grant or deny such correction is discretionary and administrative. Similarly, a prohibitory injunction will not lie to compel a canvassing board to disregard official returns and consider other copies or amended returns when the court has denied the petition for correction.