G.R. No. L-22765 and G.R. No. L-24038, January 30, 1965.
RECAREDO B. CASTILLO, AUGUSTO M. ARREZA, POLICARPIO VIOLA, JOSE MARTINEZ, SANTOS DONASCO, CARLOS ELFA, BENJAMIN SUAREZ, ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JOSE ACOSTA, BENJAMIN LOZADA, JOSE PEREZ, RUPERTA DIAZ, JUAN BALANSAG, ALFONSO ALVISO, MIGUEL BUHAY, and MELANIO ESPINIDO, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, SURIGAO DEL SUR, and MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TANDAG, TAGO, SAN MIGUEL, CAGWAIT, MARIHATAG, OTEIZA, BAROBO, BISLIG, and LINDIG, SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondents-appellees. (G.R. No. L-22765)

RECAREDO B. CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, Branch II, Fifteenth Judicial District, and ADELA SERRA Ty, respondents. (G.R. No. L-24038)

FACTS

In G.R. No. L-22765, petitioners, candidates for various provincial and municipal positions in Surigao del Sur in the November 12, 1963 elections, filed a petition for mandamus or recount of votes in the Court of First Instance against the Provincial and Municipal Boards of Canvassers. They alleged that election returns from specified municipalities were prepared under duress from armed bands and constabulary soldiers, and that votes for them were counted in favor of their Liberal Party opponents. The Provincial Board of Canvassers raised, among others, the defense of lack of cause of action. The municipal board of Tago alleged it had become functus officio after a proclamation on November 18, 1963. No preliminary injunction was issued, and the canvass proceeded. Petitioners later filed a supplemental petition pointing out specific discrepancies in the returns and tally sheets of certain precincts. The lower court dismissed the petition on December 9, 1963, ruling that the alleged irregularities were not sufficiently shown to warrant a recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code, that the petition lacked specific figures demonstrating a material effect on the election results, and that the action was improperly directed against the boards of canvassers which lack authority to conduct recounts. The canvass was completed, and the winning candidates were proclaimed on December 14, 1963, and they assumed office on January 1, 1964. Petitioners appealed the dismissal order.
In G.R. No. L-24038, petitioner Recaredo B. Castillo, the protestant in an election protest (Civil Case No. 26, Election Case No. 2) against the proclaimed governor-elect Adela Serra Ty, filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to proceed with the revision of contested ballots in that protest. The Judge had issued an order on November 21, 1964, restraining the commissioners from setting a date for revision until the appeal in G.R. No. L-22765 was finally decided, to avoid possible duplication of work.

ISSUE

The primary issue in G.R. No. L-22765 is whether the appeal from the dismissal of the petition for a recount of votes has become moot and academic. The issue in G.R. No. L-24038 is whether the mandamus to compel the judge to proceed with the election protest should be granted.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in G.R. No. L-22765 for being moot and academic. The Court held that since the proclamation of the winning candidates had been made and they had already assumed office, the remedy of a pre-proclamation recount was no longer available. The proper remedy for the petitioners was an election contest, which petitioner Recaredo B. Castillo had already availed of by filing an election protest pending in the lower court. The Court’s authority to review judgments pertains to live, justiciable issues for settling controversies, which no longer existed in the recount petition.
Consequently, in G.R. No. L-24038, the Supreme Court also dismissed the petition for mandamus. Since the appeal in G.R. No. L-22765 was dismissed, the reason given by the respondent Judge for suspending the election protest proceedings no longer existed. Therefore, the proceedings in the election protest (Election Case No. 2) must proceed until final termination. No costs were awarded in both cases.