Facts:

This case involves Virginio A. Astilla, the petitioner, against Hon. Elias B. Asuncion, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte (Branch IV), the City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City, and Bartolome Lawsin, the respondents. The events leading to the controversy unfolded during the general elections held on November 12, 1963, wherein Astilla was a candidate for councilor of Tacloban City. Shortly after the elections, on November 16, 1963, Astilla filed a petition (Election Case No. 3415) with the Court of First Instance, urging the court to amend the election return for Precinct No. 65. He claimed that Bartolome Lawsin had erroneously been credited with seventy-five (75) votes, instead of sixty-five (65) votes as indicated by the certificates of votes from the board of inspectors. Astilla argued that correcting this error would change the election outcome in his favor, granting him a plurality over Lawsin.

The board of inspectors for Precinct No. 65 consisted of Vicente

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Virginio A. Astilla, a candidate for councilor of the City of Tacloban, filed an election petition on November 16, 1963, following the general elections held on November 12, 1963.
• The petition, docketed as Election Case No. 3415 in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, sought to correct an alleged error in the election return for Precinct No. 65.
• Astilla alleged that the official election return incorrectly credited Bartolome Lawsin with seventy-five (75) votes instead of the sixty-five (65) votes shown in the certificate of votes issued by the board of election inspectors.
• Astilla maintained that such correction, if effectuated, would alter the outcome of the election by potentially rendering him the elected councilor rather than Lawsin, who was reported to have a margin of two (2) votes over Astilla.

Representations of the Parties and the Board of Election Inspectors

• Three members of the board of election inspectors were involved:
• Vicente Arante – expressed willingness to correct the return.
• Modestor Acito – similarly indicated readiness for correction.
• Gloria A. Bagares – serving as the poll clerk, also expressed willingness for the amendment.
• Respondent Bartolome Lawsin, a candidate for city councilor, filed an answer denying any sufficient knowledge about the error and moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and cause of action grounds.
• Notably, inspector Consolacion Pensona, a member of the board, explicitly denied the existence of the alleged error and declared her unwillingness to consent to any correction unless a recount substantiated Astilla’s claim.
• Additional testimonies from other inspectors (including inspector Ecito) echoed the view that while there may have been a clerical mistake in preparing some copies of the election return, all copies produced for Precinct No. 65 were identical regarding the vote count.

Proceedings in the Lower Court

• The lower court, presided over by Judge Elias B. Asuncion, reviewed the evidence and the submissions of the parties.
• After examining previous cases (e.g., Benitez vs. Paredes; Aguilar vs. Navarro; Board of Election Inspectors vs. Sison; Clarin vs. Alo.; Rabe vs. Commission on Elections; Gumpal vs. OFI of Isabels), the Judge concluded that the required unanimity among the board of election inspectors had not been achieved.
• Consequently, the petition for correction was denied, and the case was dismissed without awarding costs to any party.

Post-Judgment Actions and Interim Relief

• After exhausting efforts to secure a reconsideration of the lower court’s order, Astilla initiated an original action for certiorari against:
• The City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City,
• Judge Elias B. Asuncion, and
• Bartolome Lawsin.
• A bond was filed, and an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction was initially issued, which enjoined the respondents and their agents from canvassing or proclaiming Bartolome Lawsin as councilor-elect.
• However, subsequent oral arguments led to the dissolution of the preliminary injunction by a Court resolution dated February 11, 1964.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Cause of Action

• Whether the petition for the correction of the election return fell within the jurisdiction of the court.
• Whether the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action despite the discrepancies between the certificate of votes and the election return.

Requirement of Unanimity for Correction

• Whether the correction under Section 154 of the Revised Election Code could be granted without the unanimous consent of the board of election inspectors.
• Whether a candidate’s justiciable interest is enough to override the procedural requirement for unanimity on the existence of an error.

Implications on the Electoral Process

• The potential effects of allowing or disallowing the correction on the canvass and proclamation process in view of the fixed timeline for the assumption of office.
• Whether altering the election return without a full consensus would compromise the integrity of the election process and delay the declaration of results.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)