G.R. No. L-16837-40 - Cawa vs. Del Rosario

The case arises from the November 10, 1959, municipal elections in Buenavista, Quezon, where only two candidates were registered for mayor: Eustaquio R. Cawa and Primitivo R. Pasta.
The municipality was divided into six election precincts, namely: Precincts 1, 1-A, 2, 2-A, 3, and 3-A.

For five of the six precincts (all except Precinct 2-A), the municipal board of canvassers recorded results showing Cawa with 609 votes and Pasta with 623 votes.
In Precinct 2-A, significant discrepancies were observed:

The election return submitted by the municipal treasurer showed conflicting entries—Cawa received “62” votes in words and “102” votes in figures, while Pasta's votes were transcribed the reverse way, “102” in words and “62” in figures.
Copies of the election return in possession of the provincial treasurer and the Commission on Elections consistently recorded Cawa receiving 102 votes in both words and figures, and Pasta with 62 votes in both forms.

Owing to the conflicting figures between the municipal treasurer’s copy and other authentic copies, the municipal board suspended the canvassing for the office of mayor in Precinct 2-A pending judicial intervention.

Eustaquio R. Cawa, together with the chairman of the board of election inspectors (Miss Caridad Lago) and the poll clerk (Profiteza Budoy), filed a verified petition with the Court of First Instance of Quezon.

The petition sought authority to correct the number of votes on the municipal treasurer's election return for Precinct 2-A.
As an alternative relief, the petition requested a recount of the votes as provided by Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code.

The respondent judge, in a decision dated February 19, 1960, denied the request for correction on the technical ground that the petitioners representing the board did not constitute the required majority of authorized members, and similarly dismissed the request for a recount.
Subsequent Developments in the Case

In reaction, Cawa filed a motion to amend his petition to include the majority of the municipal board of canvassers as co-petitioners.
Before this motion could be decided, Pasta (Cawa’s opponent) filed a petition for mandamus (later amended) seeking that the board be compelled to canvass all votes in the municipality and, specifically for Precinct 2-A, that the court use the pre-amendment copy of the election return by the municipal treasurer.
The respondents, having answered the petition within the period set by the court, raised several defenses centering on the alleged futility of canvassing a return marked by discrepancies.
Almost concurrently, the majority of the municipal board of canvassers and Cawa, on separate occasions, filed verified petitions for a recount based on the discrepancies in Precinct 2-A.

The trial court consolidated the three recount petitions with the petition for mandamus for a joint trial, wherein both oral and documentary evidence were presented.
The trial court ultimately dismissed the three recount cases but granted the petition for mandamus, ordering the board to canvass votes using the municipal treasurer’s original (unamended) copy and awarding damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

In case of discrepancies between copies of election returns for a precinct, the affected candidate or the board may petition for a judicial recount solely to determine the true number of votes cast.
The recount is a summary proceeding involving the mathematical counting of votes without inquiry into the validity of individual ballots.

The legal debate involved whether the petition for recount could be entertained by a candidate filing alone, and whether a remedy by mandamus was proper under the circumstances, given the statutory provisions.

Whether, when all requisites prescribed in Sections 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code are present, it is mandatory for the court to order a recount of the votes in the affected precinct.
Whether the remedy of mandamus is available while a petition for recount is pending, considering that such petition is the designated mode for determining the true result of the election in the face of discrepancies.
Whether, prior to the finality of a judgment in a case of mandamus, the court may grant a writ of execution without affording a hearing on the matter.
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitions for correction and recount and in granting the motion for immediate execution of the mandamus order.