G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968
UNA KIBAD, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TUBARAN, LANAO DEL SUR, and ABDULMADID MARUHOM PANONDIONGAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Una Kibad and respondent Abdulmadid Maruhom Panondiongan were candidates for mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur in the November 14, 1967 elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) initially suspended the canvass and proclamation but later allowed the canvass to proceed while keeping the proclamation suspended. Petitioner filed an amended petition before the COMELEC praying for the annulment of the canvass and a re-canvass that would exclude the election returns from Precincts 10, 11, 12, and 13. He alleged that the voting in these precincts was vitiated by fraud and terrorism, resulting in “manufactured” returns that should be rejected under the Lagumbay doctrine. He specifically claimed excess votes in these precincts for councilors, senators, vice-mayor, and governor. The COMELEC denied his petition, holding that the Municipal Board of Canvassers could not be compelled to reject the returns, as the Lagumbay doctrine precludes the board from going beyond the face of the returns. Petitioner then filed this petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction, arguing the COMELEC neglected a duty enjoined by law.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus is available to compel the Commission on Elections to direct the Municipal Board of Canvassers to annul its canvass and proceed anew, rejecting the returns from four precincts under the Lagumbay doctrine.

RULING

The petition must fail; mandamus does not lie. The Supreme Court ruled that the Lagumbay doctrine is not applicable to the facts of this case. The Lagumbay ruling applies to returns that are “obviously manufactured” on their face, such as where one party’s candidates all receive exactly the same number of votes and the opposing party’s candidates all receive precisely zero. The Court emphasized that the Lagumbay doctrine must be applied restrictively and with extreme caution. In this case, the alleged excess votes for other offices did not establish that the returns were palpably false on their face, and there was no allegation that any candidate received zero votes. The Court cited subsequent decisions (Estrada, Sangki, Demafiles, Tagoranao, Alonto) which require the “palpably false” character of the returns to be evident on their face, with no evidence aliunde being acceptable. Furthermore, the Court held that the allegation that the counting was done in a different municipality three days after the election did not warrant rejection of the returns, citing Alonto v. Commission on Elections, which recognized COMELEC’s broad discretion to provide safeguards for ascertaining the true will of the people in the face of imminent violence. The right of petitioner was not clear, and the neglect of duty by respondents was not manifest, which are prerequisites for mandamus to issue. The temporary restraining order was lifted and the petition for mandamus was denied.