G.R. No. L-56532 September 21, 1981
CUSTODIO O. PARLADE, petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES and PONCIANO M. MORTERA, respondents.

FACTS

In the election for president of the Quezon City chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Custodio O. Parlade and Ponciano M. Mortera each obtained 327 votes, resulting in a tie. The chapter’s election committee, following the IBP by-laws, resolved to break the tie by drawing lots. Before the draw, Mortera protested the invalidation of a ballot cast by Eduardo E. Arroyo, Sr., which had been prepared by Pedro R. Acierto and was confiscated by the precinct canvassers. The election committee, after a hearing, upheld the ballot’s invalidation. Parlade subsequently drew the winning lot and was proclaimed president.
Mortera filed an election protest with the IBP Board of Governors, praying for the contested ballot to be counted in his favor. The Board, after hearing the evidence, reversed the election committee’s ruling. It found that Arroyo had in fact authorized Acierto to write Mortera’s name on his ballot and that Arroyo’s subsequent disclaimer was an afterthought. The Board thus declared the ballot valid, counted it for Mortera, and proclaimed him the duly elected president. Parlade then filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, assailing the Board’s resolution.

ISSUE

Did the IBP Board of Governors commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the election committee’s ruling and declaring the contested ballot of Eduardo Arroyo, Sr. as a valid vote for Ponciano M. Mortera?

RULING

No, the IBP Board of Governors did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s resolution, thereby dismissing Parlade’s petition. The legal logic rests on the factual finding that Arroyo, who was physically infirm due to a cerebral stroke, freely voted for Mortera with Acierto’s assistance. While Arroyo later submitted an affidavit claiming he had not yet authorized Acierto to fill out his ballot when it was taken, the Board found this disclaimer to be a non-credible afterthought. The Court noted that Arroyo had protested the confiscation at the time without claiming a lack of authorization, indicating his assent.
The Court emphasized the principle of maximum autonomy for the Integrated Bar, with minimum Supreme Court supervision. Under the IBP By-Laws, the decision of the Board of Governors in election contests is final. A writ of certiorari issues only for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Board’s evaluation of the evidence and its conclusion that the vote was valid constituted an exercise of its adjudicatory power within the bounds of its authority. Therefore, no grave abuse attended its decision. The resolution was upheld, and Mortera remained the duly elected president.