G.R. No. L-16341 and L-16470; May 25, 1960
ADRIANO RABE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JUDGE JOSE BAUTISTA of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur and JOSE RAPISURA, respondents. (and a related case with similar parties)

FACTS

The cases concern the November 10, 1959 election for mayor of Santa Catalina, Ilocos Sur, contested by Adriano Rabe, Jose Rapisura, and Andres Rabaino. During the canvass on November 13, 1959, the municipal board of canvassers discovered a critical discrepancy in the results for Precinct No. 7. The Commission on Elections Form No. 8 (Advance Election Result) showed Rabe with 151 votes, Rapisura with 36, and Rabaino with zero. However, the official election return submitted by the municipal treasurer showed Rabe with 151, Rapisura with zero, and Rabaino with 36. This discrepancy was vital as Rapisura’s victory depended on receiving those 36 votes. The four members of the board of election inspectors for Precinct No. 7 were summoned and unanimously admitted the error in the official return, declaring the correct tally was Rabe 151, Rapisura 36, and Rabaino zero, which they later ratified in separate affidavits. Despite this, the board of canvassers, over the protest of Rapisura’s leaders, followed the erroneous official return and proclaimed Rabe the winner by a plurality of 17 votes (Rabe: 1,387; Rapisura: 1,370). Rapisura complained to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC, by resolution dated November 20, 1959, annulled the proclamation, finding the canvassers violated its instruction (dated August 18, 1959) to suspend the canvass and report immediately when a discrepancy affecting the election result appears among authentic copies. It ordered the board to either file a court action or give the interested party five days for judicial correction of the return. Consequently, on November 23, 1959, Rapisura filed a petition for recount with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. Rabe moved to dismiss, and when he failed, he filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-16341), challenging the COMELEC’s annulment and the court’s jurisdiction to order a recount. The Supreme Court initially dismissed this petition on December 28, 1959, citing Primitivo Lacson vs. Commission on Elections. Rabe then filed a new petition (G.R. No. L-16470) against the judge and Rapisura, arguing that under the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Parlade vs. Quicho, a discrepancy between an election return and C.E. Form No. 8 (which is not one of the four copies of the election return) is not a valid ground for a recount.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to order a correction or recount of votes based on a discrepancy between the official election return and the Commission on Elections Form No. 8 (Advance Election Result), especially after the board of inspectors has admitted an error in the return.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition (G.R. No. L-16470) and reiterated its resolution dismissing G.R. No. L-16341. The Court clarified that neither the Lacson nor the Parlade decision held that a discrepancy involving C.E. Form No. 8 could not be a basis for judicial action or that discrepancy among the four copies of the election return was the sole ground for a recount. The Court found it unnecessary to rule definitively on whether a discrepancy between an election return and C.E. Form No. 8 alone could justify a recount. Instead, it held that the sworn statements of the three election inspectors and the poll-clerk of Precinct No. 7, unanimously acknowledging their error in the official return (giving Rapisura zero instead of 36 votes), constituted a sufficient basis for the correction or amendment of the election return under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code. The situation was essentially a request for the court to authorize the board of inspectors to correct their statement. Since the inspectors’ affidavits could be interpreted as consent to Rapisura’s petition, and if the court, after a hearing, is satisfied of the truth of the error, it may order the correction of the return without needing to open the ballot boxes. Therefore, the lower court acted within its jurisdiction.