G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968
AMELITO R. MUTUC, GINES SORIANO with TV SCREEN NAME NESTOR DE VILLA, JOSE ALARILLA, TOMAS A. BALUYUT, OSCAR CALVENTO, RAFAEL GAITE, MICHAEL JOSEPH, AMADO DE VERA, JR. and FILOMENA VILLAMOR, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MAXIMO ESTRELLA, TEOTIMO GEALOGO, JOSE LUCIANO, JUSTINO VENTURA, JOHNNY WILSON, PEDRO ISON, BERNARDO NONATO, IGNACIO BABASA, JUAN TENGCO and CESAR ALZONA, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were Nacionalista Party candidates for mayor, vice mayor, and councilors in Makati, Rizal, in the November 14, 1967 elections. The private respondents were their Liberal Party rivals. The municipal board of canvassers encountered an election return from Precinct 124 that was blank or incomplete; it listed the candidates’ names but contained no entries for the votes cast for them. Copies held by the provincial treasurer and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) were similarly blank, though the Comelec copy showed a total of 263 votes cast in that precinct. The canvass was halted. The board initially petitioned the Court of First Instance to open the ballot boxes but later asked the Comelec to allow proclamation disregarding the Precinct 124 return, arguing the 263 votes would not materially change the results. On November 24, the Comelec granted the request, and the board proclaimed the respondents winners based on an incomplete canvass, excluding Precinct 124. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied on December 22, leading to this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections has the power to order a canvass of returns disregarding a blank or incomplete return from a precinct upon its finding that the votes from that precinct are not likely to alter the election results.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that an incomplete canvass is illegal and cannot be the basis of a valid proclamation. It is the ministerial duty of a canvassing board to count all votes cast. Disregarding a return effectively disenfranchises voters, and the Comelec has no power to decide questions involving the right to vote. The Comelec’s judgment that the 263 votes would not materially change the results was disputed; the vote difference between the eighth and ninth councilor candidates was only 221 votes, so the 263 votes could alter the outcome. The proper course was for the Comelec to order the opening of the Precinct 124 ballot box to retrieve the copy of the return deposited therein for use in the canvass. If that copy was also blank, the Comelec should order a count of the ballots. The proclamation being illegal, the assumption of office by the respondents did not affect the basic issues. The Comelec was directed to open the ballot box for Precinct 124 to retrieve the return and, if necessary, order a count of the ballots.