Agado v. Labrador
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the general election of December 10, 1940, for the office of mayor of San Mateo, Rizal, Prudencio S. del Rosario and Cesar Santos were rival candidates. Voting for residents of the San Lazaro Leprosarium was conducted separately and supervised by the Executive Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila. The canvass of these votes resulted in one vote for Prudencio S. del Rosario. This vote was not included in the official tally for San Mateo due to procedural timing issues. 2. Procedural History: The canvass of votes by the municipal board of San Mateo resulted in a tie between Del Rosario and Santos, with each receiving 954 votes. A drawing of lots was scheduled, but Del Rosario was absent, and Santos was declared the winner. Del Rosario then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking to have the canvass declared illegal and to compel the inclusion of the Leprosarium vote. The Court of First Instance, presided over by Judge Alejo Labrador, declared the canvass and subsequent lot-drawing illegal and ordered a new canvass that included the Leprosarium vote. The petitioners, members of the municipal board of canvassers, then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to review Judge Labrador's decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the respondent judge's decision, arguing that the judge erred in ordering the inclusion of the San Lazaro Leprosarium vote. They contend that this vote could not be included because the telegram from the Executive Judge was received by the election inspectors after they had already proclaimed the results of their canvass, citing a provision of the Election Code. They also raise the issue of the legality of the vote itself, questioning whether the individual who cast it was a registered voter. The petitioners argue that the board of canvassers' duty is ministerial and that questions of illegal voting should be addressed by another tribunal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred or exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the municipal board of canvassers to include the vote cast in the San Lazaro Leprosarium in their canvass. Whether the vote cast in the San Lazaro Leprosarium for Prudencio S. del Rosario was illegal because the person who cast it was not a registered voter in precinct No. 1 of San Mateo.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The judgment of the respondent judge is affirmed. The municipal board of canvassers is ordered to convene and make another canvass, including the return from the San Lazaro Leprosarium.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge erred or exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the inclusion of the San Lazaro vote: The Court held that while Section 12 of the Election Code states that the board of inspectors shall include votes from a telegram if received before proclamation, this provision must be harmonized with the first paragraph of the same section. The explicit purpose of transmitting the result by telegraph is to have it included in the "final computation of the votes," which is made by the board of canvassers. The Court reasoned that the law could not have intended to condition a leper's right to vote upon the timely receipt of a telegraphic notice by the board of inspectors. Even if the board of inspectors did not receive the notice in time, the board of canvassers, when furnished with the telegram and the statement of election from the leprosarium, should include these votes in the final computation. The duty of the board of canvassers is ministerial, and they can be compelled by mandamus to reconvene and make a correct canvass if they have neglected or refused to perform their duties, such as excluding duly accredited returns. On the issue of the legality of the San Lazaro vote and the board of canvassers' power to inquire into it: The Court ruled that the question of whether the vote cast in the San Lazaro Leprosarium was illegal because the voter was not registered in precinct No. 1 of San Mateo was not a proper subject of inquiry for the board of canvassers. Citing Dizon vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Laguna, the Court emphasized that the board of canvassers' duty is almost wholly ministerial: to take the returns as made from the different voting precincts, add them up, and declare the result. They are to be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns but may not reject them for informalities or because of alleged illegal or fraudulent practices. Such questions are to be passed upon by another tribunal. Section 162 of the Election Code further supports this by stating that the municipal board of canvassers shall not recount or examine ballots but shall proceed upon the statements presented to it. In this case, the board of canvassers failed in its ministerial duty by not including the accredited vote from the San Lazaro Leprosarium.
Main Doctrine
The municipal board of canvassers has a ministerial duty to include all duly accredited election returns in its canvass. While election inspectors must receive returns before proclamation, the board of canvassers' duty extends to the final computation of votes, and they may be compelled by mandamus to reconvene and include returns that were erroneously excluded, provided such returns are genuine and properly authenticated.