Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Canvassers and the Provincial Treasurer to refrain from bringing the questioned returns to Manila,
as instructed by the Commission on Elections.
We must agree with the petitioner that the actuations of the respondent court are highly irregular and
void for lack of jurisdiction. The suspension of the proclamation of the winning candidate pending an
injury into irregularities brought to the attention of the Commission on Elections was well within its
administrative jurisdiction, in view of the exclusive authority conferred upon it by the Constitution,
(Art. X), for the administration and enforcement of all laws relative to elections. The Commission
certainly had the right to inquire whether or not discrepancies existed between the various copies of
election returns for the precincts in question, and suspend the canvass in the meantime, so the
parties could ask for a recount in case of variance. Moreover, the Court below could not properly
pass upon the validity of the Commission's orders without giving it a hearing, and the Commission
had not been impleaded.
1wph1.t
Even assuming that the order to suspend the proclamation of the winner was in any way defective,
the correction thereof did not lie within the authority of the statutory Courts of First Instance, since
Article X, section 2 (in fine) expressly prescribes "that the decisions, orders, and rulings of the
Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court" and by no other tribunal (Luison vs.
Garcia, G.R. No. L-10916, May 20, 1957). It is easy to realize the chaos that would ensue if the
Court of First Instance of each and every province were to arrogate itself the power to disregard,
suspend, or contradict any order of the Commission on Elections: that constitutional body would be
speedily reduced to impotence.
WHEREFORE, and without prejudice to the right of any proper party to petition for a recount of the
votes in the precincts involved, the writ of prohibition prayed for is granted, and the respondent court
is ordered to permanently refrain from proceeding in any way with Civil Case No. 365, now pending
therein, and from taking any action in relation thereto. Costs against respondent Samuel F. Reyes.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and De Leon, JJ.,
concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.