G.R. No. L-34434, December 23, 1971
JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PASAY CITY and PABEL P. CUNETA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovito Claudio, a candidate for reelection as Mayor of Pasay City, filed a petition for review of Comelec Resolution No. RR-11058. He sought to compel the Comelec to instruct the City Board of Canvassers to exclude the election returns from numerous precincts, alleging they were “spurious” or constituted “no returns” at all. Claudio contended that if these returns were excluded from the canvass, he would emerge as the winner instead of respondent Pablo Cuneta, who appeared to have obtained a plurality based on the contested returns.
The specific objections to the returns were categorized. For one set of precincts, the returns were incomplete or plainly erroneous regarding data on the number of voters and ballots. For another set, the objections pertained to alleged irregularities such as discrepancies between tally marks and written vote figures, and an excess in the total votes for mayor over the number of voters who actually voted in one precinct. For a final set of precincts, the objections involved matters Claudio deemed indicative of fraud or irregularities.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Commission on Elections and the Board of Canvassers acted correctly in including the contested election returns in the canvass, or whether the Supreme Court should order their exclusion or correction in this pre-proclamation proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the Comelec resolution. It ruled that for the first group of precincts where returns were incomplete or contained errors on voter/ballot data, the Board of Canvassers has a plain duty under Section 204 of the 1971 Election Code to return them to the respective Boards of Inspectors for completion or correction. To ensure accuracy and avoid reliance on memory, the Court ordered the corresponding ballot boxes to be opened under Comelec supervision, with party representatives present, solely to obtain the missing data without reading or recounting the votes for candidates.
Regarding the second group of precincts with alleged tally discrepancies and vote excesses, the Court affirmed the Comelec resolution including them, as there was no way to determine at the canvassing stage if these irregularities would affect the election result. However, this affirmation was without prejudice to Claudio raising these questions later, after the completion and correction proceedings for the first group of returns.
Finally, for the third group of precincts where objections pertained to allegations of fraud and irregularities in the preparation of returns, the Court affirmed the Comelec’s inclusion. These matters were deemed appropriate for a formal election protest rather than a pre-proclamation controversy, especially since some objections were not properly raised before the Comelec. The decision was declared immediately executory.