G.R. No. L-28473, March 6, 1968
TAHIR LIDASAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF PARANG, COTABATO, and SANSALUNA BIRUAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tahir Lidasan was a mayoralty candidate in Parang, Cotabato in the 1967 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers initially rejected the election returns from Precincts 15, 16, 23, and 24 on December 28, 1967, applying the doctrine of statistical probability from the Lagumbay v. Climaco case, on the ground that the returns were obviously manufactured. However, on December 29, 1967, the Board reversed itself upon order of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), stating that the Lagumbay doctrine did not apply because the returns did not show 100% voting for one party. The Board then counted the returns. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction to assail the COMELEC’s order and to declare the related acts null and void. Subsequently, on January 9, 1968, petitioner filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato against respondent Sansaluna Biruar, impugning the results of the election, canvass, and proclamation, specifically alleging terrorism, fraud, and irregularities in Precincts 14, 15, 16, 23, and 24.

ISSUE

Whether the special civil action for certiorari is proper given the subsequent filing of an election protest, and whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the canvass of the contested returns.

RULING

The petition for certiorari is dismissed. First, a special civil action of certiorari does not lie where a plain and speedy remedy is available in the ordinary course of law, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. By filing an election protest, petitioner resorted to an ordinary remedy. Since a litigant cannot avail of both a special civil action and an ordinary remedy, the present action cannot prosper. Petitioner did not show that the remedy of protest was not speedy or adequate. Second, assuming the protest was not speedy, the petition fails on the merits. The Lagumbay doctrine, which allows rejection of returns as obviously manufactured, applies only where the returns show 100% voting for all candidates of one party and zero for all candidates of the other party. In this case, the contested returns showed that for the position of mayor, petitioner received zero votes while respondent Biruar received practically all votes. However, in the same returns, candidates for other offices (e.g., Senators) from both major parties received a substantial number of votes. Furthermore, in other precincts, the returns showed the reverse situation (petitioner receiving all votes and Biruar receiving zero). Therefore, the Lagumbay doctrine is inapplicable, and no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the COMELEC in ordering the inclusion of the returns in the canvass. Costs against petitioner.