G.R. No. L-66427. January 17, 1985. EMILIO DAYAG, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE JUAN A. ALONZO, RTC, BRANCH XXV, TABUK, KALINGA-APAYAO and GLORIA GUIAWAN, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Emilio Dayag and private respondent Gloria Guiawan were candidates for Punong Barangay in the May 17, 1982 elections. In Voting Center No. 1, a controversy arose when the Board of Election Tellers (BET) invalidated votes where names were written outside the designated space, leading to a commotion. The ballot boxes were secured without an official return for Center No. 1, though a tally showed Guiawan leading. The Municipal Election Registrar later advised the BET that such votes should be counted if not marked. The Provincial Election Supervisor then directed the Board of Canvassers to complete the canvass.
Instead of submitting the election return, the BET notified the candidates of a recount on May 19, 1982. Guiawan protested but did not participate. The recount reversed the results, giving Dayag a plurality. He was proclaimed the winner. Guiawan filed an election protest. The Municipal Trial Court upheld the recount and proclamation, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, declaring the recount void for being beyond the BET’s authority and proclaiming Guiawan the winner based on the initial tally.

ISSUE

Whether the Board of Election Tellers had the authority to conduct a recount for the re-appreciation of votes after a tally but before the preparation of election returns and announcement of results.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the RTC decision. Applying Section 160 of the 1978 Election Code (P.D. No. 1296) in a suppletory character to barangay elections, the Court ruled that the BET is authorized to make alterations and corrections in the election returns before the announcement of the results. In this case, the recount and correction occurred at the tally stage, prior to the preparation of the returns and final announcement. Therefore, the BET acted within its prerogatives, especially after receiving guidance from the Election Registrar that the disputed votes should be counted. However, noting allegations of vote misappreciation and a prior agreed recount in the RTC whose results were disregarded, the Court, in the paramount interest of ascertaining the true will of the electorate, ordered the RTC to conduct a recount and re-appreciation of the votes from Voting Center No. 1 with deliberate speed and to render judgment accordingly.