This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the order dated November 18, 1969 of the respondent Judge Alfredo C. Laya of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch II and Branch XII), ordering and authorizing the board of election inspectors of precinct 33 of the municipality of Carcar, province of Cebu, "to complete and/or correct" the election return they had prepared, by (a) including in said return the name of Eduardo Gullas, one of the candidates for representative of the third congressional dis­trict of Cebu, and (c) crediting him with sixty-seven votes.  The court issued the order on the basis of the sworn testimony of the poll chairman and poll clerk and the unanimous written sworn pe­tition of the members of the board alleging that because of "fatigue and exhaustion" they had inadvertently failed to write the name of candidate Gullas "and the number of votes [obtained by him] per actual count, which is sixty-seven (67), as reflected in the tally board, in the tally sheet and the advance copy of the election results."

In the elections held on November 11, 1969 in the third con­gressional district of Cebu, the petitioner Antonio V. Cuenco of the Liberal Party and the respondent Eduardo Gullas of the Nacio­nalista Party were among the candidates for congressman.  The election return for precinct 33 in Carcar recites that the petitioner Cuenco obtained 61 votes but made no mention of the name of Gullas nor the number of votes cast for him.  This omission was brought to the attention of the Cebu provincial board of can­vassers by NP representative Abundio A. Aldemita who, in a letter dated November 13, 1969, asked the said board of canvas­sers to return the election return to the board of inspectors for correction.  The request was denied.  Obviously in anticipation of any judicial action that the NPs might pertinently take, the peti­tioner's counsel forthwith wrote the executive judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and all the judges of the branches there­of, requesting that "we be informed" of any action that "Atty. Eduardo Gullas may file . . . in connection with the election re­turns from the third congressional district of Cebu."

On November 17, 1969 the board of election inspectors (composed of Ignacia Alesna, chairman, Gerarda Nadela, poll clerk, Susana Satinitigan, LP inspector, and Faustino de la Cer­na, NP inspector), in a unanimous sworn petition, asked the court for authority to "complete the entries of all the copies of the election return of Election Precinct No. 33 of Carcar, Cebu, by writing thereon the name of candidate for congressman Eduar­do Gullas and the sixty-seven (67) votes he obtained in said pre­cinct, in words and figures, on the space in the election return provided for this purpose," explaining that their failure to do so was "through honest mistake and inadvertence due to mental and physical fatigue and exhaustion." On November 18, 1969, after a summary and ex parte hearing, the court granted the petition; and so at the meeting of the provincial board of canvassers on November 20, 1969, the chairman of the board of inspectors, over the objection of the petitioner's counsel, made the correc­tion on the election return.

Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition, which in essence imputes to the respondent judge grave abuse of discre­tion in issuing the order in question.

The petitioner's thesis is that although under section 154 of the Revised Election Code a petition for correction may be heard ex parte, the respondent judge nevertheless should have notified him of the hearing after he had requested to be informed of any action that the respondent Gullas might bring; that under section 154 a petition may be heard summarily and ex parte only if the members of the board of inspectors are unanimously agreed on the existence of an error - which does not obtain here as the signature of LP inspector Satinitigan on the petition was procured through "fraud and intimidation," which Satinitigan herself de­nounced in her affidavit of November 21, 1969; that at any rate under section 154 the court may only authorize, but not order, the correction of errors in the election return.

In their answers, the respondents deny and traverse the petitioner's allegations, and contend that, contrary to her later statement of November 21, 1969, LP inspector Satinitigan volun­tarily signed the petition for correction.  They argue that, in line with the decisions of this Court, the respondent judge correctly and properly held a summary and ex parte proceeding, not being bound to give notice to the petitioner.  They stress that the peti­tioner's letter-request to the court referred to any action that "Atty. Eduardo Gullas may file" and not to one that might be filed "by any party," and that as the petition filed in the lower court was in fact brought not by the respondent Gullas but by the board of inspectors, the respondent judge was not duty bound to notify the petitioner thereof, especially in view of the urgent na­ture of the action.  The respondents aver that the number of votes credited to the respondent Gullas is confirmed by the number of votes credited to him in the tally sheet and the tally board, and that, as found by the provincial board of canvassers Gullas polled a total of 17,498 votes, against the petitioner's total of 17,482 votes, winning by a plurality of 16 votes.

It is our view that the present petition must be dismissed.

The action for correction of errors in election returns authorized by section 154^[1] of the Revised Election Code is a sum­mary one, having in view the limited time, before proclamation, within which the court must act.  As such, the petition for autho­rity to correct may be entertained and granted only if it is made upon the unanimous petition of the members of the board of inspec­tors.  For when the members do not agree on the existence of an error, the matter becomes contentious, necessitating a full-dress hearing.^[2] As this Court has said, "From the moment that the ins­pectors or any of them do [sic] not agree with the corrections of the returns, the case becomes contentious and, as such, requires the presentation of evidence in order that the court may deter­mine on what ground to grant or not grant authority to amend the returns in question."^[3]

The petitioner Cuenco vehemently argues that the peti­tion for correction, made under the authority of section 154, should not have been heard and resolved without notice to him, especially in view of the fact that he explicitly asked by letter to be informed of any action that Eduardo Gullas might file in connection with the election returns from the third congressional district of Cebu and, further, because the correction sought to be made would materially affect the result of the election.  Upon a similar contention made in Gumpal vs. Court of First Instance of Isabela,^[4] this Court ruled that section 154 "does not require notice to the candidates.  The absence of such requirement be­comes significant when contrasted with the last sentence of sec­tion 163 specifically directing that notice of the proceeding for the recounting of votes be given to all candidates affected." This Court went on to say, "it is true that, as stated by the petitioner herein, 'the summary nature of the proceeding under section 154 does not preclude notice to other affected candidates as the alte­ration or amendment sought to be made would materially affect the election.' Indeed it would be a good practice to require such notice in appropriate cases, particularly when there is sufficient time therefor and there are circumstances indicating that the al­legations of the petition for correction may not be entirely truth­ful." We may perhaps add that in this case before us, due pro­cess, the community's sense of fairness, would seem to indicate the need of hearing the petitioner Cuenco, consistently with the summary character of the proceeding.  Indeed the respondent judge might have accommodated the petitioner's request, considering that the latter's residence is only a stone's throw from the court­house.

However, paraphrasing the language of this Court in Gumpal, all indications pointed to the veracity of the unanimous peti­tion filed in the present case by the board of election inspectors.  Thus, (a) the petition was unanimously subscribed and sworn to:  by the chairman, the poll clerk, the LP inspector and the NP ins­pector; (b) the petition was corroborated by the "advance election returns" duly signed by the said four members of the board of inspectors and transmitted to the COMELEC-OQC tabulation cen­ter on election night as required by the COMELEC; (c) the num­ber of votes sought to be credited to the respondent Gullas was corroborated as well by the tally board, an official COMELEC form; (d) the petition was substantiated by the testimony in court of the chairman and poll clerk.  It is noteworthy that the petitioner Cuenco does not deny that the respondent Gullas was a candidate; the omission from the election return of mention of the latter's name and of the votes that he garnered, was there­fore a patent mistake.  Nor does the petitioner categorically deny that the respondent Gullas obtained 67 votes:  all he candidly says is that he does not really know how many votes Gullas got.  Nor does he asseverate that Gullas obtained much less than 67, as would materially affect the result of the election.  Consequently, we are not prepared to say that the petitioner Cuenco was denied due process by the court a quo when no notice was given to him of the petition for correction.

The above observations notwithstanding, and assuming in gratia argumenti that the petitioner Cuenco was "entitled" to be heard in the proceeding before the court below, it bears empha­sis that even after the lapse of more than 25 days - from the time the elections were held on November 11 to the time he filed his memorandum in this case on December 8 - the petitioner Cuenco still has failed to demonstrate that the respondent Gullas obtained a number of votes much less than the 67 that were credited to the latter in precinct 33 as would materially affect the result of the election.

It is true that the petitioner claims that the signature of Satinitigan, the LP inspector, on the petition for correction was procured through fraud and intimidation.  Put this is squarely controverted by the affidavit of the COMELEC registrar of Carcar and by the other members of the board of inspectors; thus belied is the petitioner's claim that Satinitigan is an unread per­son who was made or compelled to sign a petition that she did not understand.  Indeed the petitioner appears to be unsure of his claim, as, in point of fact, at the oral argument on December 4, 1969 before this Court he practically disowned Satinitigan, pre­sumably in an effort to discredit her, by asserting that she was not the person whom he had appointed as LP inspector for pre­cinct 33.

We are satisfied, on the basis of the foregoing disquisi­tion, that the respondent court acted with jurisdiction and in accordance with law.  Under section 154, unanimity need only exist upon the filing of the petition or before the court issues the order of correction.  Thereafter, any change of heart or mind on the part of any of the members of the board of inspectors, no matter how well or badly motivated it may be, can have no effect.  Otherwise any one of the inspectors could with facility trifle with the law, and the court would be going through the motions of a use­less and meaningless act.

Javier vs. Court of First Instance of Antiques^[5] does not sus­tain the petitioner's thesis.  In that case one inspector never joined the petition filed with the court.  It is true that he had joined earlier similar petitions filed with the municipal treasurer and the board of canvassers, but these two bodies obviously could not lawfully act thereon.  When the judicial petition was filed, the inspector did not sign it; on the contrary, he opposed it.  Therefore the court never acquired jurisdiction under section 154.  In this case before us, the facts are widely disparate.  The LP inspector Satinitigan, with all the other inspectors, signed the petition.  She never disowned or withdrew her signature.  Even now she does not deny it.  Her recantation - an obvious afterthought - came only after the petition had been decided and the correction had been made.

Broad perspectives of public policy impose upon courts the imperative duty to ascertain by all means within their command who is the real candidate elected, but always in as expeditious a manner as possible, without being fettered by technicalities and procedural barriers.^[6]

Incidentally, the petitioner and the respondent Gullas swap charges of terrorism and vote-buying in the election adverted to.  Suffice it to say that the present petition is not the proper remedy, nor is this Court the proper forum for the ventilation of these charges.

In sum, the petitioner has not fashioned out a case that per­force would compel this Court's intervention.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed and the writs prayed for are denied; as a logical consequence, the petitioner's prayer that the proclamation of the respondent Eduardo Gullas as the duly elected representative of the third congressional district of Cebu made by the Cebu provincial board of canvassers on No­vember 27, 1969 be declared null and void, is hereby denied.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., did not take part.
Reyes, Makalintal, Sanchez, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., dissents in a separate opinion.
Barredo, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
Fernando, J., concurs in dissenting opinion of J. Dizon on the due process.

---

^[1] "SEC. 154.  Alterations in the statement.  - After the announce­ment of the result of the election in the polling place, the board of inspectors shall not make any alteration or amend­ment in any of its statements, unless it be so ordered by a competent court."

^[2] E.g., Astilla v. Asuncion, G.R. No. L-22246, Feb. 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 456; Felix v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-28378, June 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 1288; Benitez v. Paredes, 52 Phil. 1(1928).

^[3] Benitez v. Paredes, supra, note 2 at 12.

^[4] G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416, Nov. 29, 1960.

^[5] G.R. No. L-24727, February 28, 1966, 16 SCRA 362-364.

^[6] See De Mesa vs. Mencias, 18 SCRA 538.

tags