G.R. No. L-16464; July 26, 1960
VICENTE MALINAO, BENITO ALDE, GREGORIO ARABE, AQUILINO BORDEOS, SALVADOR ADOR, and MANUEL CELEDA, petitioners, vs. MARCOS RAVELES, Sub-Provincial Warden at Borongan, Samar, respondent.

FACTS

On November 22, 1959, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) suspended the original municipal board of canvassers of Borongan, Samar, set aside its prior canvass and proclamation, and authorized its special attorney to appoint substitute members. Accordingly, on November 27, 1959, the petitioners were appointed as the new municipal board of canvassers. On December 2, 1959, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar issued orders directing the board to hold the canvass at specified locations. The petitioners complied and began canvassing on December 3, 1959. During the canvass, mayoralty candidate Victor Amasa protested discrepancies in the election returns for Precincts Nos. 11-A and 20-A. After his protest was overruled by the board, Amasa filed an amended urgent motion in the CFI (Case No. 1092) praying for a recount and for a preliminary injunction to restrain the board from continuing the canvass. The CFI issued an order on the same day directing the municipal board of canvassers to “absolutely desist and refrain from continuing the canvassing and from making any proclamation.” When served with this order, the petitioners had already canvassed 37 of 41 precincts, including the contested ones. Believing they were not parties to the case (as the original suspended board members were the named respondents) and that they were acting under COMELEC authority, they proceeded to finish the canvass and proclaim the winners. Upon Amasa’s complaint, the CFI ordered the petitioners’ arrest for contempt. After a hearing on December 4, 1959, the court found them guilty of contempt and sentenced each to six months imprisonment and a P1,000 fine. The petitioners were detained. They filed a notice of appeal, but the court refused to act on it due to a preliminary writ of injunction issued by the Supreme Court in a related case (G.R. No. L-16319). The petitioners then filed this petition for habeas corpus.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted on the ground that the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction and, consequently, no jurisdiction to hold the petitioners in contempt for violating it.

RULING

Yes, the writ of habeas corpus is granted. The Supreme Court ruled that the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction in the first place. Citing its prior decision in Municipal Board of Canvassers of Borongan, et al. vs. Hon. Emilio Benitez, et al. (G.R. No. L-16319, June 30, 1960), the Court held that Amasa’s petition for a recount, based on a discrepancy between election returns and watchers’ certificates, did not confer jurisdiction upon the CFI to order a recount under Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code, following the doctrine in the Parlade case. Consequently, the CFI also lacked jurisdiction to issue the ancillary preliminary injunction to restrain the canvass. Since the injunction order was void for lack of jurisdiction, the judgment finding the petitioners guilty of contempt for disobeying it was likewise void. The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that habeas corpus lies when a person is detained under a judicial order that is void because the court lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court dated December 4, 1959, is revoked, and the petitioners are ordered released. The bond filed for their temporary liberty is cancelled.