G.R. No. L-7302 February 25, 1954
LUIS T. CLARIN, petitioner, vs. HON. HIPOLITO ALO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Luis T. Clarin, filed a petition seeking to prohibit the respondent Judge from continuing to hear a petition filed by the election inspectors of Precinct No. 10 of Antequera, Bohol (Case No. 150). The inspectors sought judicial authority to correct the election return to include their resolution on 82 ballots they had placed in an envelope labeled “Ballots under Protest.” Clarin argued that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction because, the election in the precinct being complete for all legal purposes, the determination of whether the return faithfully expressed the electoral proceedings fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal. He further contended that since the Commission on Elections had ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvass, only the Supreme Court, on appeal, could suspend, revoke, or modify that order. Additionally, Clarin asked the Supreme Court to dissolve a preliminary prohibitory injunction issued by the respondent Judge in a mandamus case (No. 821), which enjoined the Provincial Board of Canvassers from proclaiming the result for Representative of the First District of Bohol pending resolution of the correction of the return. Finally, he sought an order directing the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvass using the return on file.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to hear and grant the election inspectors’ petition for correction of the election return under Article 154 of the Revised Election Code.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should dissolve the preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance in the related mandamus case.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvass immediately.

RULING

1. YES, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction. Under Article 154 of the Revised Election Code, after an election is finished, the Board of Inspectors may correct the return with authorization or by order of the competent court in all cases not covered by Article 162 (which allows return for correction of formal defects by the canvassing board). The phrase “competent court” has consistently been understood to mean the Court of First Instance of the province or city, as established in prior jurisprudence (Benitez vs. Judge Paredes; Dizon vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Laguna; Aguilar vs. Navarro; Board of Inspectors of Boñgabon vs. Judge Sison). The subsequent creation of the Commission on Elections did not alter this meaning. The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance under Article 154 is summary, and its resolution is final and executory only for purposes of the canvass, without prejudice to any subsequent electoral protest. The Commission on Elections did not invade this jurisdiction, as it had not taken up or resolved the question of amending the return, which involves the appreciation and validity of the 82 protested votes—a matter beyond its administrative competence. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal pertains to electoral protests against members of Congress, which is not the subject of the proceeding under Article 154. Therefore, the petition to prohibit the respondent Judge from hearing the inspectors’ petition is without merit.
2. NO, the Supreme Court will not dissolve the preliminary injunction. It is elementary that a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction should first be filed in the court that issued it. The parties had agreed, with court approval, to submit for resolution only the motion to dismiss in Case No. 150, reserving other questions in that case and in the mandamus case (No. 821) for later determination. The petitioner cannot complain that the issue remains pending in the lower court in view of this agreement. Moreover, since the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the petition for correction, the motion to dissolve the injunction must await the outcome of that petition. The time and place to raise the issue is not now before the Supreme Court.
3. NO, the Supreme Court will not order the canvass to proceed. Given that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to decide on the correction of the return and that the matter remains pending due to the preliminary prohibitory injunction issued in this very Supreme Court case at the petitioner’s instance, the request for an order to proceed with the canvass is premature. The proper course is for the parties to urge and cooperate in the speedy termination of the pending cases. The Court emphasized the importance of avoiding fraudulent proclamations. If, as alleged and as indicated by documents submitted by the petitioner himself, there are 82 valid ballots for candidate Natalio Castillo that would decide the election in his favor, it would be a manifest fraud to ignore these votes based on legal technicalities. Technicalities deserve no consideration and should be censured when used to commit, conceal, or foster fraud.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition is denied in all respects, with costs against the petitioner. The preliminary prohibitory injunction issued by the Supreme Court in this case is hereby dissolved effective immediately. Any damages caused by this preliminary injunction shall be presented and determined in Case No. 150 of the Court of First Instance.