G.R. No. L-22246. February 29, 1964.
VIRGINIO A. ASTILLA, petitioner, vs. HON. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV, CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS of TACLOBAN City, and BARTOLOME LAWSIN, respondents.

FACTS

Virginio A. Astilla and Bartolome Lawsin were candidates for city councilor of Tacloban in the November 12, 1963 elections. After the canvass, Lawsin had a plurality of two votes over Astilla. Astilla filed a petition with the Court of First Instance, seeking an order to compel the board of election inspectors of Precinct No. 65 to amend its election return. He alleged that the return erroneously credited Lawsin with 75 votes, while the certificate of votes issued by the same board showed only 65 votes for Lawsin. Correcting this alleged error would make Astilla the winner.
The chairman and one member of the board expressed willingness to correct the return. However, board member Consolacion Pensona, in her answer and during the hearing, denied the alleged error. She stated she did not know whether the return or the tally board was correct and would consent to a correction only if justified by a prior recount of the ballots. No such recount was conducted, as Astilla had withdrawn a separate recount petition, and it was admitted that all copies of the return for the precinct were identical.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Astilla’s petition for correction of the election return due to lack of unanimity among the board of election inspectors.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, which governs the judicial correction of manifest errors in election returns. The Court, reiterating its ruling in Gumpal v. Court of First Instance of Isabela, held that such a correction cannot be authorized unless all members of the board of election inspectors are unanimous both on the existence of a clerical error and on their willingness to rectify it. This requirement of unanimity is crucial to preserve the integrity and finality of the board’s official act and to prevent courts from arbitrarily altering returns without clear and agreed-upon evidence of mistake.
In this case, the requisite unanimity was absent. Inspector Pensona explicitly refused to admit the error or consent to the correction without a prior recount. Since no recount was undertaken and all copies of the return were consistent, the court could not, without factual basis, order a correction that would effectively have a board member certify to a fact she disputed. The Court found no compelling reason to depart from this established rule, noting that relaxing it could lead to protracted litigation, delay canvasses and proclamations, and create harmful vacancies in public office. Therefore, the respondent judge correctly denied the petition for lack of jurisdictional foundation, as the condition precedent of unanimous board consent was not met. The petition for certiorari was denied.