G.R. No. 42209 ; August 24, 1934
VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. VALERIANO FUGOSO and THE HONORABLE PEDRO MA. SISON, respondents.

FACTS

Valeriano Fugoso, a candidate for councilor in Manila’s June 5, 1934 election, filed a petition for mandamus against the Junta Municipal de Escrutinio de Manila (Municipal Board of Canvassers). He alleged that the Board, in its final proclamation on July 12, 1934, committed two errors: it refused to credit him with 85 votes from Precinct No. 135 and erroneously credited his opponent, Teofilo Mendoza, with 100 votes from Precinct No. 229. These errors resulted in Mendoza being proclaimed elected by a margin of 121 votes. Fugoso demanded the Board correct these errors, but it refused. The Court of First Instance, after a hearing where only the Board’s secretary appeared, granted the mandamus and ordered the Board to reassemble and recanvass the votes to apply the corrections. The Board members (petitioners) challenged the order, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction over them as they were not properly served summons and that the Board had ceased to exist after its proclamation. They also contended an election protest, not mandamus, was the proper remedy.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers in the mandamus proceeding.
2. Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a board of canvassers to reassemble and correct errors in its canvass and proclamation after it has adjourned sine die.

RULING

1. Yes, the court acquired jurisdiction. Service of the petition and orders upon the individual members of the Board after the initial proceeding, in which the secretary had appeared and answered, was sufficient. The Board’s subsequent “special appearance” to challenge the order was effectively a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
2. Yes, mandamus is the proper remedy. The duties of a board of canvassers are purely ministerial. Until it has fully performed its duty to correctly canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidate in accordance with the law, it remains in default and can be compelled by mandamus to reassemble and correct its errors, even after adjournment sine die and a proclamation. An election protest is not the exclusive remedy and is only available after a valid proclamation. The Court cited precedents, including *Municipal Council of Las Piñas vs. Judge of First Instance of Rizal*, establishing that a board may be compelled to complete its ministerial duty correctly.
The petition for certiorari was denied, and the lower court’s order was upheld. The temporary injunction was dissolved, and the trial court was directed to set a new reasonable period for the Board to comply.

AI Generated by Armztrong.