1. ELECTIONS; JURISDICTION; CORRECTION OF RETURNS BY ELECTION INSPECTORS. — In view of the provision contained in the last paragraph of section 465 of the Election Law, the proper Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to authorize election inspectors’ to correct the returns sent to the provincial board, after said inspectors’ petition to that effect. The proviso contained in said legal provision is permissive and, as such, gives the inspectors permission or authority which they may or may not exercise as they deem most convenient.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; MANDAMUS. — Election inspectors are at liberty to use or not to use the permission to correct the returns by authority of the court, but it cannot be held that it is their ministerial duty to do so and they cannot, therefore, be compelled to do so by mandamus.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PETITION FOR PERMISSION. — The inspectors having requested the court’s authority to correct their returns, and the respondent judge having rendered a judgment and the inspectors having complied therewith, before the issuance of a writ of injunction by this court against the respondents, the mandamus proceedings instituted must be considered as an application for judicial authorization in order that the inspectors might amend the election returns in question, and the returns thus corrected and finally sent to the provincial board of canvassers must have all its legal effects with respect to the canvass of votes for the office of provincial governor in accordance with sections 465 and 469 of the Election Law.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — From the enactment of Act No. 3387 (December 3, 1927), the legal provision relative to the correction of election 249287 returns and certificates by election inspectors and municipal boards of canvassers ceased to be a mandatory and became directory, according to the terms of the last paragraph of section 465, which constitute the amendment to the Election Law.

5. ID.; ID.; ID. — The amendment to the Election Law prohibits, after the proclamation of the result of the election, any amendments or changes in the election returns, and only permits the inspectors to make amendments by authority of a competent court. The consent of the inspectors is necessary to make the correction in order that the court may grant the authority requested.

6. ID.; ID.; ID. — If the amendment to section 465 has any meaning, in our opinion it means that the correction of the returns, which was formerly considered as a ministerial duty of the election inspectors and municipal and provincial boards of canvassers, now, after the enactment of Act No. 3387, is only a discretionary act of said boards and cannot, therefore, be the subject of a mandamus proceeding.

7. ID.; ID.; ID. — The provincial board of canvassers has no discretion to examine some of the returns that have been present and not examine the others, because by doing so its canvass would not be complete. If, by mandate of the law, it is the duty of the board to examine all the returns that are before it, the action of prohibition to prevent it from complying with its duty will not lie, even under the allegation that some of the returns were falsified, for if there are errors in the returns committed by the inspectors, the law permits their correction by judicial authority, and the returns thus corrected must be taken into account by the provincial board of canvassers.

This action of prohibition originally instituted in this court, is for the purpose of preventing the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna from proceeding with cases Nos. 4976, 4977 and 4978 of said court, instituted by the other respondent, Tomas Dizon; the first against the election inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Biñan, Laguna; the second against the election inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Loñgos, Laguna, and the third against the members of the provincial board of canvassers of said Province of Laguna.

As the ground for this action, it is alleged that the respondent judge lacks jurisdiction to try said cases, for the reason that the duties of the election inspectors, defendants in cases Nos. 4976 and 4977, ceased with the remission of their election returns to the proper authorities, because the provincial board of canvassers is vested with the ministerial duty of making the proclamation in accordance with the returns received by them.

The respondents allege in their answer that the respondent judge has jurisdiction to try the cases presented to him through the complaints mentioned by the petitioner, invoking sections 465 and 469 of the Election Law in support thereof.

A careful examination of the record reveals:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) That after the general elections held on June 5, 1928, that is, on June 9th of that year, the respondent, Tomas Dizon, filed in the Court of First Instance of Laguna presided over by the respondent judge, the complaint of mandamus No. 4976 against the election inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Biñan, Laguna, for the correction of all the copies of the election returns of said precinct so as to show that 129 instead of 148 votes were counted and adjudicated in said precinct to the protestant Eulogio Benitez for the office of provincial governor;

(b) That on the 11th of the said month of June, the respondent Tomas Dizon brought another action of mandamus in the court presided over by the respondent judge, against the election inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Loñgos (case No. 4977), for the correction of all the copies of the election returns of that precinct so as to show that 157 instead of 207 votes were counted and adjudicated to the protestant Eulogio Benitez for the office of provincial governor;

(c) That on the 11th of the said month of June, the respondent Tomas Dizon likewise brought another action of prohibition against the members of the provincial board of canvassers (case No. 4978) in order that it be restrained from counting the votes cast in said precincts No. 1 of Biñian and Loñgos abiding by the correction of the election returns as decided by the courts in said mandamus proceedings (cases Nos. 4976 and 4977);

(d) That, in accordance with the petition in these three actions, the court issued the proper orders, copies of which are attached to the record in the present case;

(e) That on the 11th of the said month of June, the respondent judge acted upon the petition for mandamus against the inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Biñan, who were summoned and filed their answer in the following terms: (1) That the true number of votes obtained by Eulogio Benitez in the returns made on the night of the election in precinct No. 1 of Biñan is 129; (2) that an unintentional error has been committed by showing 148 votes in the returns, and it must have been that the inspector who dictated the figures erroneously, gave Mr. Benitez the 148 votes which Mr. Gomez obtained in the precinct for the office of representative; (3) that the respondents noting the error, went to the capital of the province as soon as they discovered it in order to correct the same, but were not permitted to do so; (4) that the respondents desire to have judicial authority to correct the error which they have made; (5) that with these explanations, the respondents admit the facts alleged in the complaint;

(f) That in view of this answer the respondent Judge on said June 11th rendered a judgment in civil case No. 4976 ordering the respondents to amend the election returns in precinct No. 1 of Biñan, Laguna, in regard to the office of provincial governor, adjudicating to Eulogio Benitez the true number of votes obtained by him in the canvass, or, 129 instead of 148 votes;

(g) That the provincial board of canvassers and the Executive Bureau were notified of this judgment on the said 11th of June, and by virtue of said judgment the respondent inspectors amended the election returns of said precinct in regard to the office of provincial governor, so that the election returns relative to the said office should read as follows:

Votes

Eulogio Benitez 129

Tomas Dizon 85

Proceso Echarri 12

Santos Doria 7

These amended election returns were sent to the provincial board of canvassers and the president of said board, the provincial treasurer, acknowledged receipt thereof, stating that the same would be submitted to the provincial board of canvassers for the proper action;

(h) That it appears in the first election returns sent to the provincial board of canvassers by the inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Biñan that Mr. Benitez had received 148 votes;

(i) That by virtue of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this court, the proceedings in said civil cases Nos. 4977 and 4978 were suspended.

The pleadings, as may be seen, raise the question of the jurisdiction of the respondent judge to try the said cases, this question being the turning point on which hinges the extensive and brilliant memoranda presented by the distinguished attorneys for both parties in the trial of the case.

It is to be noted, first of all, that the mandamus proceedings (case No. 4976) against the election inspectors of precinct No. 1 of Biñan, had already been decided on June 11th by the respondent judge, the judgment which ordered the amendment of the returns of that precinct, executed (June 11th) by the inspectors, and the amended returns, received by the provincial board of canvassers, when the Vacation Justice of this court issued the writ of preliminary injunction against the respondent judge. Therefore, this order of the court cannot have any effect with respect to the said complaint No. 4976, for it is a well-known rule of law that an act already performed cannot be prevented. But, did the respondent judge have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in which it was prayed that the election inspectors of the precinct in question be ordered to correct the copies of the election returns of said precinct? Section 465 of the Election Law reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 465. Inspectors’ statement and certificate of result. — Within three hours after the completion of the count the inspectors shall make, complete and sign a written statement thereof in quadruplicate, showing the date of the election, the name of the municipality, and the number of the precinct in which it was held, the whole number of ballot stubs received from the municipal treasurer, the whole number of ballots deposited in the ballot box, the whole number of votes adjudicated to each candidate for each office, the whole number of ballots rejected as marked, the whole number objected to because marked but not rejected, the whole number of ballots objected to and rejected for other reasons, the whole number of the ballots objected to for the same or different reasons, but accepted, the whole number of spoiled ballots, the whole number of ballots remaining on hand, and the whole number of ballots not used, writing out at length in words and not in figures, and at the end thereof a certificate signed by the inspectors to the effect that the statement is in all respects correct, and any protest filed by the watchers. Every such statement shall be made upon a single sheet of paper, or if this cannot be done, each sheet thereof shall be signed on the margin by all the inspectors. Forthwith thereafter, but in any event within one hour after the proclamation, one copy thereof shall be filed with the municipal treasurer, one shall be forwarded in the manner provided in the next following section to the provincial treasurer, and one, also sealed, shall be forwarded to the Chief of the Executive Bureau. The fourth shall be placed by the board in the valid ballot box upon sealing the same.

"Upon the completion of such count and of the statements of the result thereof, the chairman of the board of inspectors shall make public oral proclamation of the whole number of votes cast at such election at such polling place for all candidates, by name for each office.

"After publication of the result and before retiring, it shall be the duty of the inspectors of the polling place to furnish a certificate of the number of votes cast for each candidate for Insular and provincial office and municipal president and vice-president to all and each of the watchers present at the polling place, who may request the same. The statements and certificates of votes referred to in this section shall be delivered before, and not after, four o’clock in the afternoon of the day next following the election. After the said proclamation, no changes or amendments shall be made by the board of inspectors in such certificates of votes, unless so ordered by a competent court."cralaw virtua1aw library

This section provides as the duties of the election inspectors: (a) To make the election returns and certify to the correctness of the contents thereof; (b) to proclaim the number of votes obtained by each candidate; (c) to forward a copy of the election returns to the municipal treasurer, another to the provincial treasurer, another to the Executive Bureau and another to be deposited in the valid ballot box at the time of presenting it; and (d) to issue a certificate of the number o