Facts:

The case at hand is Delfin B. Albano vs. The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Isabela, G.R. No. L-19593, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 10, 1962. The petitioner, Delfin B. Albano, challenged the actions of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Isabela and the corresponding court handling an electoral case concerning the municipal elections for the lone congressional district of Isabela. The sequence of events began when the provincial board completed the vote canvassing, excluding four precincts from Reina Mercedes, nine from Cabagan, and one from Sto. Tomas, when the Commission on Elections ordered the suspension of the canvass. In a prior case (Albano vs. Arranz), the Supreme Court acknowledged the possibility of a recount, allowing Albano to file a petition for a judicial recount in the Court of First Instance of Isabela. After the recount confirmed allegations of falsified election returns by the provincial treasurer, the lower court instead dismisse

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed by Delfin B. Albano (petitioner) against the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Isabela and other respondents.
• The petitioner sought several reliefs:
• Declaration that the respondent court’s decision dated March 22, 1962, and its subsequent order dated April 18, 1962, in Electoral Case No. Br. II-3, be declared null and void.
• An order directing the respondent court to immediately declare the result of the judicial recount it conducted.
• An order for the provincial board of canvassers to resume the canvass and proclaim the winner in the election after the recount result was transmitted.
• Maintenance of the writ of preliminary injunction issued on March 29, 1962 until further order.

Electoral Context

• The canvassing of votes for the office of representative of the lone congressional district of Isabela had been substantially completed except for votes in:
• Four precincts in the municipality of Reina Mercedes.
• Nine precincts in the municipality of Cabagan.
• One precinct in the municipality of Sto. Tomas.
• The canvass was halted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), creating a procedural gap that led to the filing of the petition.

Precedential and Procedural Background

• The petition was filed in line with the reservation contained in a prior decision in Albano vs. Arranz, 61 Off. Gaz. 4995, which reserved the right to petition for a recount.
• Under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code, a party affected by discrepancies in vote statements may request a recount to determine the correct vote count.
• After the petition for correction and/or judicial recount was filed, several procedural incidents delayed the proceedings.
• Once the ballot boxes were opened, the recount confirmed the complete and exact occurrence of falsification in copies of the election return.

Actions of the Lower Court

• Despite the recount confirming the petitioner’s allegations of falsification, the respondent court rendered a decision on March 22, 1962, dismissing the petition.
• The dismissal was based on the ground that petitioner did not present evidence showing that the recount would affect the result of the election.
• Petitioner then filed a motion for new trial, which emphasized:
• The fact that the issue of altering the return was not proven should have been impliedly admitted by respondent in its general denial.
• In previous proceedings (Albano vs. Arranz), it was already acknowledged that any alteration, if established, would negatively affect petitioner.
• Respondent had not raised this evidence issue at any stage prior to the now-completed recount.
• During the hearing on the motion for new trial, respondent court indicated that additional evidence might be admissible upon a proper petition.
• Subsequently, on April 3, 1962, petitioner filed a petition to present additional evidence (including affidavits and a request for a subpoena duces tecum for official documents).
• Petitioner's request for additional evidence and documents was denied by the respondent court.
• The respondent court confirmed its dismissal through an order dated April 18, 1962, solely on procedural grounds.

Issue:

The Sufficiency of Evidence Requirement

• Whether the dismissal of the petition by the respondent court on the ground of lack of evidence that the recount would affect the election result was justified.
• Whether it was proper for the respondent court to require the production of evidence regarding potential effect on the election result after the recount had already confirmed falsification.

Procedural Fairness and Use of Technicalities

• Whether the respondent court’s reliance on mere procedural technicalities, which ultimately prevented the presentation of additional evidence useful to the petitioner’s case, was appropriate.
• Whether the procedural stance adopted by the lower court contradicted the reservation included in the prior decision rendered in Albano vs. Arranz.

The Role and Purpose of a Judicial Recount under Section 163

• Whether the statutory scheme of Section 163 of the Revised Election Code, which allows a judicial recount for resolving discrepancies, should be narrowly interpreted as necessitating preliminary evidence before the recount or if the recount itself suffices as evidence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)