G.R. No. L-16584; May 23, 1961
PACIANO M. MIRALLES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO G. GARIANDO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Paciano M. Miralles, et al., and respondents Francisco G. Gariando, et al., were candidates for municipal offices in Alangalang, Leyte, in the November 10, 1959 elections. Miralles, et al., filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Leyte on November 19, 1959. They alleged that Gariando, et al., failed to file valid certificates of candidacy, having submitted only unsigned mimeographed copies to the municipal secretary. Consequently, Miralles, et al., prayed that the municipal board of canvassers be prohibited from canvassing the votes and instead be ordered to proclaim them as the duly elected officials, being the only unopposed candidates.
During the hearing, the municipal secretary presented documents, including signed carbon copies of the respondents’ certificates of candidacy, which the court marked as exhibits. Petitioners attempted to present evidence that these signed copies were surreptitiously inserted into the municipal records after the election to replace the originally filed unsigned copies. However, the trial court sustained objections to this line of questioning, deeming it immaterial as it pertained to post-election events. The court subsequently dismissed the petition, finding that respondents had duly filed their certificates of candidacy as required by law.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for prohibition and mandamus seeking to prevent the municipal board of canvassers from canvassing the election results and to compel the proclamation of petitioners as unopposed candidates.

RULING

Yes, the trial court’s dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision on two primary legal grounds. First, the court has no power to prohibit a municipal board of canvassers from performing its ministerial duty to canvass votes and proclaim winners, as mandated by Section 168 of the Revised Election Code. The board’s function is purely mechanical; it must rely on the election returns submitted to it. Judicial intervention to prevent such canvass is only allowed in cases expressly provided by law (Section 163), which the instant case is not.
Second, the remedy sought by petitioners was improper. Their core contention was that respondents were ineligible candidates due to defective certificates of candidacy. The proper recourse for such a claim is a post-proclamation quo warranto proceeding under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code, which must be filed within one week after the proclamation of the winning candidates. A petition for prohibition and mandamus aimed at pre-empting the canvass is not the appropriate vehicle. The Court also noted that petitioners had previously filed a similar petition with the Commission on Elections, which denied it on jurisdictional grounds, and petitioners’ failure to appeal that ruling rendered it final. Thus, the dismissal was affirmed.