G.R. No. L-28666 May 20, 1969
ESPERANZA SOLIDUM, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE FELIX V. MACALALAG, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Aklan, and CATALINO SULAM, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Esperanza Solidum and private respondent Catalino Sulam were candidates for municipal councilor of Ibajay, Aklan, in the 1967 elections. During the canvass on November 20, 1967, the municipal board of canvassers discovered that the election return from Precinct 25 omitted Sulam’s name and votes. After a walkout by three minority (Liberal Party) members, the four remaining Nacionalista members continued the canvass and proclaimed Solidum as the eighth councilor-elect. Without Sulam’s votes from Precinct 25, Solidum had 2,486 votes against Sulam’s 2,459, a 27-vote margin. Sulam contended he actually received 34 votes in Precinct 25, which would give him a 7-vote victory if counted. On November 22, 1967, three members of the board of election inspectors for Precinct 25 executed a joint affidavit before the municipal judge stating that Sulam obtained 34 votes, which was reflected in the precinct’s tally board, but was omitted from the return due to inadvertence. Solidum took her oath of office on the same day. Upon advice from the Commission on Elections, Sulam filed a petition on December 1, 1967, in the Court of First Instance of Aklan (Election Case 1649) for correction of the election return and/or judicial recount. Respondent Judge Felix V. Macalalag issued an ex-parte writ of preliminary injunction on December 4, 1967, restraining Solidum from assuming office. The judge also ordered the opening of the Precinct 25 ballot box on December 14, 1967, finding Sulam’s name and 34 votes on the tally sheet inside. Solidum filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the judge did not resolve, instead setting the case for hearing. Solidum then filed the present original action for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the lower court’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Aklan has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition for correction of election returns and/or judicial recount (Election Case 1649).

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance of Aklan has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and prohibition. The proclamation made on November 20, 1967, was null and void because it was based on an incomplete canvass, as the canvassers proceeded despite the patent omission in the return and the absence of three members. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote if it disregards a later correction of a manifest mistake. The power to authorize the correction of an election return rests with a competent court. The petition for correction was filed on December 1, 1967, well within the two-week period for filing an election contest, which is jurisdictional. Therefore, the lower court acted within its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case.