G.R. No. 30243 , September 10, 1928
TOMAS DIZON, petitioner, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LAGUNA, respondents.

FACTS

In the June 5, 1928, election for Provincial Governor of Laguna, the race between Eulogio Benitez and Tomas Dizon was extremely close. The result hinged on the returns from the first precinct of Biñan. The original return credited Benitez with 148 votes. However, the election inspectors later admitted they had made a mistake and that Benitez actually received only 129 votes. They attempted to correct the return on June 9, but the Provincial Board of Canvassers, then in the process of canvassing, refused to allow the correction. On June 11, Dizon secured a court order from the Court of First Instance of Laguna compelling the inspectors to file an amended return showing 129 votes for Benitez, which they did on June 12. Meanwhile, on June 9, the Provincial Board completed the tabulation of all returns, which, using the original Biñan return, showed Benitez winning by nine votes. The board members signed a certification of this tabulation on a later date. The board did not proclaim a winner because, on June 11, it was enjoined by the Court of First Instance from further proceedings. Dizon then filed this original petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the Provincial Board to reconvene, use the amended return in its canvass, and proclaim the correct result.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Provincial Board of Canvassers had completed its ministerial duty of canvass and proclamation when it finished tabulating the returns on June 9, 1928, thereby precluding it from considering the subsequently filed amended return.
2. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the Provincial Board to reconvene and use the amended return in its canvass.

RULING

1. No. The Provincial Board of Canvassers had not completed its ministerial duty. The mere tabulation of votes and the signing of a certification of that tabulation did not constitute the final act of the canvass. The board’s duty under the law was not only to tabulate but also to “determine who has been elected” to provincial offices based on that tabulation and to proclaim the result. Since no proclamation had been made and the board was under a court injunction, its duties remained unperformed. Therefore, it was obligated to reconvene and consider the amended return, which had been duly authorized by a competent court.

2. Yes. Mandamus is the proper remedy. The duties of a Provincial Board of Canvassers, once the authenticity and regularity of the returns are determined, are purely ministerial. It has no discretion to ignore a return that has been judicially corrected. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of this ministerial duty. This is distinct from the situation involving municipal election inspectors, whose functions in ascertaining votes are judicial in nature and thus not controllable by mandamus.

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The respondents, comprising the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Laguna, were ordered to:
a) Reconvene as a board;
b) Amend their tabulated statement by replacing the figures from the original Biñan return with those from the court-approved amended return (showing 129 votes for Benitez instead of 148);
c) Proclaim Tomas Dizon as the elected Provincial Governor (resulting in a final tally of 11,301 votes for Dizon and 11,291 for Benitez); and
d) Certify this result to the Chief of the Executive Bureau.