Bautista v. Fugoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Valeriano Fugoso, a candidate for councilor in the June 5, 1934, Manila election, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Junta Municipal de Escrutinio de Manila (Election Canvassing Board). Fugoso alleged that the board fraudulently and illegally refused to credit him with 85 votes in precinct No. 135, reducing his total vote, and illegally and fraudulently credited Teofilo Mendoza with 100 votes in precinct No. 229, increasing Mendoza's total vote. This resulted in Mendoza being declared elected by a majority of 121 votes. Procedural History: Fugoso prayed that the board be compelled to reassemble, correct the errors in precincts Nos. 135 and 229, and declare him elected. The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the board to show cause. The board's secretary, Edilberto Gonzalez, filed an answer asserting the board had ceased to exist and that protest, not mandamus, was the proper remedy. The trial court, finding the facts alleged by Fugoso to be true and noting the respondent board's non-appearance, declared the proclamation void, held that the board could be compelled to perform its ministerial duty, and ordered the board to reassemble and recanvass the votes, correcting the errors. Copies of this decision were served on individual board members. When the board failed to comply, Fugoso filed a petition for contempt. The court denied the contempt petition but ordered the board to comply within 48 hours, warning of contempt. The Petition: The members of the board, through counsel, filed a special appearance, asserting lack of jurisdiction as they were not personally served with summons and Edilberto Gonzalez's appearance did not bind them. They argued that the board, having proclaimed the results on July 12, 1934, was functus officio. Subsequently, they filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the trial court's orders, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the members of the municipal board of canvassers. Whether the municipal board of canvassers, having proclaimed the election results, had ceased to exist and was therefore functus officio. Whether a writ of mandamus could compel the board to reassemble and correct alleged errors in vote canvassing.
Ruling
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied, and the temporary injunction is dissolved. The order of the Court of First Instance of July 27, 1934, is left in full force and effect, with the directive for the trial court to fix a new reasonable period for compliance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that while it could be conceded that the action for mandamus should have been directed against the petitioners individually and they should have been served with summons, the petitioners had entered a voluntary appearance when they filed a petition (Exhibit 8) on July 24, 1934. In this petition, they did not question the court's jurisdiction but instead prayed for reconsideration of an order and for service of copies in accordance with law. The Court noted that at no stage thereafter was the authority of the board president to make the appearance questioned. Therefore, the court acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners by their voluntary appearance. On the issue of the board being functus officio: The Court acknowledged the general proposition that a board of canvassers, after fully performing its duty and adjourning sine die, may be considered functus officio. However, in this case, the Acting Secretary of the Interior authorized the board to convene in a special session to comply with the court's order. The Court adopted the more reasonable doctrine that until the board has fully performed the duties laid upon it by law in the manner prescribed by law, it may be required by a writ of mandamus to comply and complete its work. The duties of such a board are purely ministerial. On the availability of mandamus: The Court affirmed that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a board of canvassers to perform its purely ministerial duties. Until the board had performed the exact duty imposed upon it by law, it must be considered in default. It would be a legal anomaly to allow the board to rely on having issued a certificate of election contrary to law as a reason why it should not be compelled to perform an imperative duty. The Court cited Municipal Council of Las Piñas vs. Judge of First Instance of Rizal to support this principle.
Main Doctrine
A municipal board of canvassers, until it has fully performed the duties laid upon it by law in the manner prescribed by law, may be required by a writ of mandamus to comply with the law and complete its work. Its duties are purely ministerial, and mandamus is the proper remedy. Jurisdiction over the members of the board can be acquired through voluntary appearance.