G.R. No. L-5758 - De Leon vs. Imperial

Isidro de Leon, petitioner, and Fortunato Gutierrez, respondent, were candidates for municipal councilor of Makati, Rizal, in the elections held on November 13, 1951.
There were eight councilors to be elected.
On November 18, 1951, the municipal board of canvassers conducted the canvass of the election returns and, due to a clerical error in addition, credited petitioner's vote tally as 3,160 instead of the correct 3,060.
Based on the erroneous figures, petitioner was proclaimed the elected 8th councilor of Makati.

On April 12, 1952, Fortunato Gutierrez filed a petition before the Commission on Elections alleging that a mistake in addition had led to the miscalculation of votes.
The petition claimed that, when properly tallied, petitioner had received 3,060 votes while Gutierrez had obtained 3,098 votes—a margin of 38 votes in Gutierrez’s favor.
Gutierrez prayed that the municipal board of canvassers be directed to reconvene, recanvass the votes, and issue a new proclamation declaring him the 8th councilor-elect.

On May 26, 1952, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss Gutierrez’s petition on the ground that the period allowed for correcting such errors had prescribed.
The Commission on Elections denied petitioner’s motion and instead directed the municipal board of canvassers to reconvene and recanvass the election returns.
On May 31, 1952, the board reconvened and, after the recanvass, found that Gutierrez had indeed polled more votes than petitioner, leading to a new proclamation in favor of Gutierrez.
In addition, petitioner filed an election protest with the Court of First Instance of Rizal on June 2, 1952, contesting the new proclamation of Gutierrez.

The key chronological points include the original proclamation on November 18, 1951, Gutierrez’s filing on April 12, 1952, and the reconvening of the board on May 31, 1952.
The period for contesting an election, as prescribed by the law, was a critical factor since any petition for correction or protest was subject to strict time limits.
The legal framework emphasized that once the candidate’s office was assumed after the prescribed period, any alteration or correction should be made only pursuant to a judicial order.

Does the Commission on Elections have the power to order the municipal board of canvassers to correct a clerical error in the summation of votes after the candidate erroneously proclaimed has already assumed office?
Is such an error subject to correction by administrative action or must it be rectified only through judicial intervention?

Does the fact that the period for filing an election protest had already expired invalidate the Commission on Elections’ subsequent action to reconvene the board and correct the error?
Can administrative corrections made after the lapse of the prescribed period circumvent the deliberate statutory scheme governing election protests?