G.R. No. L-16413; January 26, 1960
EMILIO C. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The case concerns the proclamation for Mayor of Hagonoy, Bulacan, following the November 1959 elections. During the canvass, the Municipal Board of Canvassers encountered an issue with the election return from Precinct No. 7, which listed “Emilio” twice in the column for mayor—one credited with 30 votes and the other with 109 votes—along with other candidates. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) instructed the board to proceed with the canvass excluding the votes for “Emilio” from that precinct and to withhold proclamation if those votes would materially affect the result. A court case (No. 2080) was filed for a recount, but the petitioner withdrew it after the court observed that the return could be read as “Emilio Perez” (30 votes) and “Emilio Santos” (109 votes), finding no discrepancy. On December 3, 1959, the original board, led by Chairman Trillana, attempted to proclaim Emilio Santos as the winner, including both the 30 and 109 votes from Precinct No. 7, giving him a 25-vote plurality. The COMELEC’s supervising attorney, Atty. Bautista, objected because the Precinct No. 7 return had not been formally canvassed and the votes had not been tallied. After a walk-out by five board members, Atty. Bautista suspended them, appointed substitutes, and a reconstituted board completed the canvass, including the votes from Precinct No. 7, and proclaimed Emilio Perez as mayor-elect. Emilio Santos and the five original board members appealed to the COMELEC, which annulled the first proclamation and upheld the second. Santos then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The issue is which of the two proclamations made on December 3, 1959, is legal and valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the COMELEC’s resolution. It declared both proclamations of December 3, 1959, null and void. The Court held that the first proclamation by the original board was unauthorized because it was made over the objection of the COMELEC’s representative and without completing the canvass of Precinct No. 7 as instructed. The second proclamation by the reconstituted board was also invalid because the suspension and replacement of board members by the COMELEC’s attorney were beyond her authority. The Court directed that a new Municipal Board of Canvassers, composed of the newly elected municipal council members, proceed without delay to canvass the original return from Precinct No. 7. The board was to determine the correct names based on the evidence from the previous court case and, if it found the same candidate listed twice, to suspend proclamation to allow for a judicial recount under the Revised Election Code. The preliminary injunction was dissolved, and costs were imposed on petitioner Emilio Santos.