G.R. No. L-31252 December 22, 1969
ANTONIO V. CUENCO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. ALFREDO C. LAYA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branches II and XII, EDUARDO GULLAS, IGNACIA ALESNA, in her capacity as Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors, Election Precinct No. 33 of Carcar, Cebu, GERARDA NADELA, as Poll Clerk of Election Precinct No. 33 of Carcar, Cebu, and the PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ELECTION CANVASSERS OF CEBU, respondents.

FACTS

In the November 11, 1969 elections for the third congressional district of Cebu, petitioner Antonio V. Cuenco and respondent Eduardo Gullas were candidates. The election return for Precinct 33 in Carcar showed Cuenco obtaining 61 votes but completely omitted the name of Gullas and any votes for him. On November 17, 1969, the Board of Election Inspectors for Precinct 33 (composed of Chairman Ignacia Alesna, Poll Clerk Gerarda Nadela, LP Inspector Susana Satinitigan, and NP Inspector Faustino de la Cerna) filed a unanimous sworn petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu. They alleged that due to “fatigue and exhaustion,” they inadvertently failed to enter Gullas’s name and his 67 votes, as reflected in the tally board, tally sheet, and advance copy of election results. On November 18, 1969, after a summary and ex parte hearing where the chairman and poll clerk testified, respondent Judge Alfredo C. Laya granted the petition and authorized the board to correct the return by including Gullas’s name and crediting him with 67 votes. Petitioner Cuenco, who had previously written the court requesting to be informed of any action Gullas might file regarding election returns, was not notified of this proceeding. The correction was made before the Provincial Board of Canvassers on November 20, 1969. Cuenco filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion. He argued that notice should have been given to him, that the LP inspector’s signature on the petition was obtained through fraud and intimidation, and that the court could only authorize, not order, a correction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order authorizing the correction of the election return without notice to the petitioner and based on an ex parte proceeding.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition is dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that the action for correction under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code is summary in nature due to the limited time before proclamation. Such a petition may be entertained and granted only upon the unanimous petition of the board of inspectors. The Court found that all indications pointed to the veracity of the board’s unanimous petition: it was subscribed by all members (including the LP inspector), corroborated by the advance election returns sent to COMELEC, supported by the tally board (an official COMELEC form), and substantiated by the testimony of the chairman and poll clerk. The omission of Gullas’s name and votes was a patent mistake, and the petitioner did not categorically deny that Gullas obtained 67 votes or assert that the number was materially different. While notice to affected candidates is a good practice in appropriate cases, the Court, citing Gumpal vs. Court of First Instance of Isabela, ruled that Section 154 does not require such notice, especially when contrasted with Section 163 which specifically requires notice for recount proceedings. Given the urgent nature, the unanimity of the board, and the corroborating evidence, the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction and discretion in proceeding ex parte. The petitioner’s claim of fraud and intimidation regarding the LP inspector’s signature was squarely controverted by other affidavits, and the petitioner himself later disowned the inspector. The Court was satisfied that the correction reflected the true results of the election.