GR L 15887; (October, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15887; October 16, 1919
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LAS PIÑAS, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, and CLEMENTE DALANDAN, petitioners, vs. THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, MANUEL AREVALO and RUFINO DE LEON, respondents.
FACTS:
An election for municipal president of Las Piñas was held on June 3, 1919. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Clemente Dalandan as the elected president. Manuel Arevalo filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging that based on the election returns (actas electorales), he actually received 305 votes against Dalandan’s 302, and prayed that the board be compelled to correct its certificate and proclaim him as the winner. The board demurred, arguing lack of jurisdiction, but the demurrer was overruled. After hearing, the lower court found from the election returns that Arevalo indeed received 305 votes and Dalandan 302, and granted the writ of mandamus directing the board to correct its certificate accordingly. The board and Dalandan appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because no appeal lies in municipal election contests. They then filed this petition for certiorari, arguing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction because not all candidates were notified and the required bond was not posted.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus to compel the municipal board of canvassers to correct its certificate of canvass to conform with the election returns.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, upholding the lower court’s jurisdiction. The Court ruled that mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a municipal board of canvassers to perform the ministerial duty of issuing a certificate that conforms to the election returns, when a manifest error appears on the face of such returns. The Court held that: (1) mandamus lies to correct a board’s certificate that does not match its own canvass as shown in the returns, without needing to re-examine ballots or decide election contests; (2) notice to all candidates is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction in such mandamus proceedings, as the action is against the board alone; (3) no bond is required for mandamus in such cases; and (4) the judgment in such municipal election mandamus proceedings is final and unappealable. Since the lower court acted within its jurisdiction, certiorari does not lie.