G.R. No. L-24727 February 28, 1966
PATERNO JAVIER, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE, JOSEFINA B. ESPONILLA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 elections for mayor of Culasi, Antique, petitioner Paterno Javier and respondent Felix Lomugdang were candidates. The original election return for Precinct No. 4 credited Lomugdang with only 23 votes, but the tally board and sheets showed 83 votes for him. All members of the board of inspectors for that precinct unanimously signed a letter to the Municipal Treasurer and Board of Canvassers requesting correction of the return to conform with the tally. Despite a suspension order from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the Board of Canvassers proceeded with the canvass and proclaimed Javier as mayor-elect by a 53-vote plurality. COMELEC later nullified this canvass and proclamation, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in a prior case (Javier vs. Commission on Elections). Subsequently, respondents (including Lomugdang and three members of the board of inspectors) filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Antique for judicial correction of the election returns under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code. However, one inspector, Eliseo Amar, filed a manifestation stating his name was included in the petition without his consent, that he did not sign it, and that he objected to any proceeding except an actual recount of the ballots. Javier moved to dismiss the petition due to this lack of unanimity among inspectors. The lower court denied the motion and ordered the correction, reasoning that Amar’s prior acts (joining the initial request for correction) admitted the error and his later objection was merely obstructive. Javier’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in ordering the summary correction of the election returns under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code despite the lack of unanimity among all members of the board of inspectors.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, annulled and set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court ruled that under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code, a court may not authorize the correction of an election return unless all members of the corresponding board of inspectors are unanimous in acknowledging the error and are willing to rectify it. This unanimity requirement is essential because authorizing a correction summarily disposes of a candidate’s claim to office, and such action requires maximum assurance short of a recount. The fact that inspector Eliseo Amar refused to join the judicial petition for correction, despite his prior participation in the initial request, destroyed the required unanimity. His conduct, whether contradictory or not, meant he was not sure an error was committed. Consequently, the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the correction. The resolution was without prejudice to any proper action against Amar himself. The Court also noted there was no pending petition for a recount of the ballots from Precinct No. 4.