Demafiles vs. Commission on Elections

A board of canvassers performs a purely ministerial function and cannot reject an election return that is not obviously manufactured on its face merely because evidence aliunde suggests a discrepancy in the number of registered voters; reelectionist provincial board members are incompetent to sit as municipal canvassers, and the COMELEC may annul an illegal canvass and order a new one counting wrongfully excluded returns.

Sebaste was created by Republic Act 4870, which provided that its first mayor, vice-mayor, and councilors would be elected in the next general elections for local officials. Under section 167(b) of the Revised Election Code, the provincial board of Antique acted as the municipal board of canvassers for the new municipality. Agripino Demafiles and Benito B. Galido were the mayoralty candidates in that first election.

Sebaste, a newly created municipality in Antique, held its first election of officers in the general elections of November 14, 1967, with Agripino Demafiles and Benito B. Galido vying for mayor. On November 21, Galido asked the provincial board, acting as municipal board of canvassers under section 167(b) of the Revised Election Code, to disregard the election return from precinct 7 as “obviously manufactured.” He based the request on the return’s showing that 195 voters were registered, of whom 188 voted, while a certificate of the municipal election registrar stated that only 182 had registered in that precinct as of October 30, 1967. At its session the following day, November 22, the board, over the objection of one member, voted to reject the precinct 7 return and canvassed the returns from the other precincts.

The canvass produced 888 votes for Galido and 844 for Demafiles, and Galido was proclaimed mayor-elect of Sebaste. Galido took his oath and assumed office on November 22, pursuant to Republic Act 4870. On November 24, Demafiles wired the COMELEC, protesting the board’s rejection of the precinct 7 return and the subsequent proclamation of Galido, and challenging the right of two board members, Julito Moscoso and Quirico Escaño, to sit because they were reelectionists. Acting on the protest, the COMELEC resolved on November 28, 1967 to annul the canvass and proclamation of the local officials of Sebaste, to constitute the board of canvassers by appointing substitutes under section 167(a) of the Revised Election Code, and to have the results canvassed anew in accordance with the Instructions to Boards of Canvassers in Resolution No. RR-544, particularly No. 5-K, after which the winning candidates were to be proclaimed.

Galido asked for reconsideration, arguing that the two reelectionist provincial board members were disqualified from sitting only when the board acted as a provincial board of canvassers, not as a municipal board of canvassers, and that the COMELEC resolution annulling the canvass and proclamation was issued without giving him an opportunity to be heard. In its resolution of December 4, 1967, the COMELEC reconsidered its previous order and held that the canvass and proclamation already made of the local officials stand. Demafiles failed to secure a reconsideration of this latter resolution and filed the present petition for mandamus and certiorari to set aside the COMELEC resolution, annul Galido’s proclamation, and secure an order directing the COMELEC to appoint substitute members of the provincial board and to order a new canvass of the returns, including that from precinct 7.

Demafiles claimed that after October 30, 1967 eight more voters were allowed to register, making a total of 190 voters, and that on election day five voters erroneously assigned to precinct 6 were allowed to vote in precinct 7 because that was where they were really assigned. The precinct 7 return showed nothing on its face from which the canvassers might conclude that it did not speak the truth; the discrepancy appeared only when the return was compared with the election registrar’s certificate. Two of the four members of the board of canvassers were candidates for reelection.

• Exclusion of Precinct 7 Return: Petitioner argued that the board should not have rejected the precinct 7 return; he claimed that after October 30, 1967 eight more voters were allowed to register, making a total of 190 voters, and that on election day five voters erroneously assigned to precinct 6 were allowed to vote in precinct 7 because that was where they were really assigned.
• Disqualification of Reelectionist Board Members: Petitioner challenged the right of Julito Moscoso and Quirico Escaño to sit in the board of canvassers, considering that they were reelectionists.
• COMELEC Relief: Petitioner sought mandamus and certiorari to set aside the COMELEC resolution, annul Galido’s proclamation, and order the COMELEC to appoint substitute members of the provincial board and to order a new canvass including the precinct 7 return.

• Mootness: Respondent countered that the case was moot because Galido had taken his oath and assumed office on November 22, pursuant to Republic Act 4870.
• “Obviously Manufactured” Return: Respondent argued that the precinct 7 return should be disregarded as “obviously manufactured” because it showed 195 registered voters, of whom 188 voted, while the election registrar’s certificate stated that only 182 had registered as of October 30, 1967; he cited Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections.
• Scope of Section 28 Disqualification: Respondent argued that reelectionist members of the provincial board were disqualified under section 28 only when the board acted as a provincial board of canvassers, not when it sat as a municipal board of canvassers.
• Lack of Hearing: Respondent argued that the COMELEC resolution annulling the canvass and proclamation was issued without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

• Mootness: Whether the case became moot because Galido took his oath and assumed office on November 22, pursuant to Republic Act 4870.
• Power of Board of Canvassers to Reject Return: Whether the respondent board of canvassers was within its power in rejecting the return from precinct 7 based on an election registrar’s certificate showing fewer registered voters than the return.
• Disqualification of Reelectionist Board Members: Whether provincial board members who were candidates for reelection were disqualified from sitting in the board as a municipal board of canvassers.
• COMELEC Power to Order Count: Whether the COMELEC can order the board of canvassers to count a return from a given precinct.

• Mootness: No. Galido’s assumption of office did not moot the case because the term of municipal officials begins on January 1 following the election; the phrase “and shall have qualified” in Republic Act 4870 cannot be read to start the term immediately after proclamation.
• Power of Board of Canvassers to Reject Return: No. The board’s function is ministerial, and it cannot reject a return that is not obviously manufactured on its face; the discrepancy with the registrar’s certificate had to be threshed out in an election contest.
• Disqualification of Reelectionist Board Members: Yes. Section 28 of the Revised Election Code disqualifies any provincial board member who is a candidate from acting in the board relative to the election, with no distinction between provincial and municipal canvassing.
• COMELEC Power to Order Count: Yes. The COMELEC has the power to annul an illegal canvass and proclamation and to order a new canvass counting wrongfully excluded returns.

• Mootness: The SC rejected Galido’s mootness argument. Republic Act 4870 provided that the first mayor, vice-mayor, and councilors “shall be elected in the next general elections for local officials and shall have qualified.” The SC held the phrase “and shall have qualified” devoid of meaning and unmitigated jargon, and courts cannot supply a meaning the legislature failed to express. Under the general rule in section 7 of the Revised Election Code, the term of office of municipal officials begins on the first day of January following their election. Galido’s assumption of office on November 22 therefore did not affect the basic issues in the case.
• Power of Board of Canvassers to Reject Return: A canvassing board performs a purely ministerial function — compiling and adding the results as they appear in the returns transmitted to it. Under Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections, canvassers must be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns — that the papers are not forged and spurious, that they are returns, and that they are signed by the proper officers — but once satisfied, they may not reject returns because of informalities or illegal and fraudulent practices in the elections. They cannot pass upon the validity of a return or exclude it on the ground that the votes cast in the precinct are illegal. The board justified exclusion as “obviously manufactured” based on the registrar’s certificate showing only 182 registered voters against the return’s 195. Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections allowed rejection without evidence aliunde only where fraud is palpable from the return itself, as where all eight candidates of one party received exactly the same number of votes and all eight candidates of the other party received nothing. The precinct 7 return showed nothing on its face; the discrepancy appeared only when compared with the registrar’s certificate. It was therefore not obviously manufactured, and the claim of more voters than registered voters should be threshed out in an election contest.
• Disqualification of Reelectionist Board Members: Section 28 of the Revised Election Code provides that any member of a provincial board or municipal council who is a candidate for office in any election shall be incompetent to act on said body in the performance of duties relative to said election. Salcedo vs. Commission on Elections held that reelectionist provincial board members were disqualified and added reason for nullifying the board’s action. Galido’s argument that the disqualification applies only when the board acts as a provincial board of canvassers was rejected. Section 28 is all-inclusive and draws no distinction between the provincial board acting as a provincial board of canvassers and the same board acting as a municipal canvassing body for new municipalities; ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemos. Two of the four members of the board, Moscoso and Escaño, were reelectionists, so the canvass and proclamation should be annulled.
• COMELEC Power to Order Count: It is settled doctrine that the COMELEC has the power to annul an illegal canvass and an illegal proclamation, as when they are based on incomplete returns, and to order a new canvass by counting the returns wrongfully excluded. If it can direct that certain copies of election returns be used in preference to other copies, it can direct canvassing bodies to count all returns that are otherwise regular. It is the COMELEC’s duty to do so, and it may be compelled by mandamus. Since the board’s function is ministerial — to count the results as they appear in returns that on their face reveal no irregularities or falsities — the COMELEC should order the board to count the precinct 7 return.

• Ministerial Function of Board of Canvassers — A canvassing board performs a purely ministerial function of compiling and adding the results as they appear in the returns transmitted to it. It must be satisfied of the genuineness of the returns — that they are not forged and spurious, that they are returns, and that they are signed by the proper officers — but once satisfied, it may not reject returns because of informalities or illegal and fraudulent practices in the elections. Applied here, the board could not reject the precinct 7 return based on the registrar’s certificate because the return was regular on its face.
• Obviously Manufactured Return / Res Ipsa Loquitur — A return may be rejected without evidence aliunde only where fraud is so palpable from the return itself that the return does not speak the truth. In Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections, the return was palpably false because all eight candidates of one party received exactly the same number of votes while all eight candidates of the other party received nothing. Applied here, the precinct 7 return showed nothing on its face; the discrepancy appeared only when compared with the registrar’s certificate, so the fraud claim had to be litigated in an election contest.
• Disqualification of Reelectionist Board Members — Under section 28 of the Revised Election Code, any member of a provincial board or municipal council who is a candidate for office in any election is incompetent to act on said body in the performance of duties relative to said election. The statute draws no distinction between the provincial board acting as a provincial board of canvassers and the same board acting as a municipal canvassing body for new municipalities. Applied here, Moscoso and Escaño, being reelectionists, were disqualified from sitting in the board of canvassers.
• COMELEC Power to Annul Illegal Canvass and Order New Canvass — The COMELEC has the power to annul an illegal canvass and an illegal proclamation, as when they are based on incomplete returns, and to order a new canvass by counting the returns wrongfully excluded. It may direct canvassing bodies to count all returns that are otherwise regular, and it may be compelled by mandamus to perform this duty. Applied here, the COMELEC should have ordered the board to include the precinct 7 return in the new canvass.
• Term of Office of Municipal Officials — Under section 7 of the Revised Election Code, the term of office of municipal officials begins on the first day of January following their election. The phrase “and shall have qualified” in Republic Act 4870 cannot be read to start the term immediately after proclamation. Applied here, Galido’s assumption of office on November 22 did not moot the case.

• “a canvassing board performs a purely ministerial function” — The SC used this to reject the board’s exclusion of the precinct 7 return, because the board’s role was only to count returns as they appeared.
• “they may not reject any returns because of informalities in them or because of illegal and fraudulent practices in the elections.” — Quoted from Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections, this defines the limit on the board’s ministerial authority.
• “The return therefore is by no means "obviously manufactured" so as to justify its exclusion.” — The SC distinguished Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections because the precinct 7 return did not show fraud on its face.
• “it is now settled doctrine that the COMELEC has the power to annul an illegal canvass and an illegal proclamation as when they are based on incomplete returns, and order a new canvass to be made by counting the returns wrongfully excluded.” — This is the basis for the SC’s order to include precinct 7 in the new canvass.

• Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections, 85 Phil. 149, 157-158 (1949) — Controlling precedent on the ministerial function of canvassers and their inability to reject returns for informalities or fraudulent practices in the elections.
• Lagumbay vs. Commission on Elections, L-25444, Jan. 31, 1966 — Distinguished; rejection without evidence aliunde is allowed only where fraud is palpable from the return itself.
• Salcedo vs. Commission on Elections, L-16360, Jan. 30, 1960 — Followed; reelectionist provincial board members are disqualified from sitting in the board of canvassers.
• Abendante vs. Relato, 94 Phil. 8 (1953) — Relied on for the rule that a board of canvassers cannot pass upon the validity of an election return and exclude it, and for the COMELEC’s power to order a new canvass.
• Olaño vs. Ronquillo, L-17912, May 31, 1963 — Cited in support of the COMELEC’s power to annul an illegal canvass and order a new canvass.
• Lacson vs. Commission on Elections, L-16261, Dec. 28, 1961 — Cited in support of the COMELEC’s power to annul an illegal canvass and order a new canvass.
• Espino vs. Zaldivar, L-22325, Dec. 11, 1967 — Cited for the COMELEC’s power to direct the use of certain copies of election returns in preference to others.

• Section 167(b), Revised Election Code — The provincial board acted as the municipal board of canvassers for the new municipality. Applied here, the board acted under this provision but exceeded its ministerial function by rejecting the precinct 7 return.
• Section 167(a), Revised Election Code — The COMELEC was ordered to constitute the board of canvassers by appointing substitutes. Applied here, the SC directed the COMELEC to appoint new members in substitution of Moscoso and Escaño.
• Section 28, Revised Election Code — Any member of a provincial board or municipal council who is a candidate for office in any election is incompetent to act on said body in the performance of duties relative to said election. Applied here, the two reelectionist board members were disqualified from sitting as municipal canvassers.
• Section 7, Revised Election Code — The term of office of municipal officials begins on the first day of January following their election. Applied here, Galido’s assumption of office on November 22 did not moot the case.
• Republic Act 4870 — Created the Municipality of Sebaste and provided that its first mayor, vice-mayor, and councilors would be elected in the next general elections for local officials and “shall have qualified.” Applied here, the SC held the phrase “and shall have qualified” meaningless and refused to read it as starting the term immediately after proclamation.