G.R. No. L-25399 January 27, 1966
MARIANO H. ACUÑA, petitioner, vs. HON. CESARIO GOLEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mariano H. Acuña and respondent Carmen D. Consing were candidates for Representative for the First District of Capiz in the November 9, 1965 elections. While the provincial board of canvassers was canvassing returns on November 26, 1965, Consing filed Election Case No. 242 in the Court of First Instance of Capiz (presided by respondent Judge Cesario Golez) for a judicial recount of votes in Precinct No. 1 of Cuartero, Capiz, on the ground that the entry in the Nacionalista Party copy of the election return was illegible. Acuña’s motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Golez on December 2, 1965. Consing subsequently filed Election Case No. 245 on December 3, 1965, for a recount in six precincts of Dao, Capiz, alleging discrepancies between the Nacionalista Party copies and the provincial treasurer’s copies. Another similar proceeding was initiated for nine precincts of Dumarao, Capiz.
On December 7, 1965, Acuña filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul Judge Golez’s order and restrain the judicial recounts, arguing the lower court lacked jurisdiction or the petitions were premature. The Supreme Court issued a restraining order. Consing later moved to dismiss Election Cases Nos. 242 and 245, which were dismissed on December 8, 1965. However, on December 23, 1965, Acuña filed an urgent supplemental petition alleging that Consing had filed a new consolidated petition, Election Case No. 249, for a judicial recount covering the precincts from the dismissed cases plus numerous additional precincts from other municipalities, based on the same grounds. Acuña sought to extend the restraining order to include Election Case No. 249.

ISSUE

Whether a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code may be ordered based on a discrepancy between the copy of the election return furnished to the provincial treasurer and the copy furnished to a major political party (as required by a COMELEC resolution, not by the Election Code itself).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code cannot be based on a discrepancy involving the additional copies of election returns furnished to the major political parties pursuant to a COMELEC resolution. The phrase “another copy or other authentic copies” in Section 163 refers only to the four copies mentioned in Section 150 of the Code (destined for the ballot box, the municipal treasurer, the provincial treasurer, and the Commission on Elections). The lawmakers could not have referred to any other copies as no such copies were prescribed in the Code itself. The Court has consistently construed Section 163 restrictively to prevent delays in the proclamation of winning candidates. The COMELEC resolution requiring additional copies for political parties was not annulled and may have a salutary effect, but the copies distributed under it cannot be used to trigger a judicial recount under Section 163. The supplemental petition was entertained as it raised the same substantive issue, and the interest of justice demanded the removal of obstacles to the completion of the canvass. The Court rendered judgment in favor of Acuña and perpetually enjoined the respondents from proceeding with the judicial recount in Election Case No. 249.