JOSE LINO LUNA vs.
EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ and Jose Lino Luna presented a protest in the Court of First Instance and a
SERVANDO DE LOS ANGELES
G.R. No. L-13744 November 29, 1918
Ponente: JOHNSON, J.I.
Doctrine:
The rules and regulations, for the conduct of elections, are mandatory
before the election, but when it is sought to enforce them after the
election they are held to be directory only, if that is possible, especially
where, if they are held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be
deprived of their votes without any fault on their part.
When the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a
prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has been due to an
honest mistake or misrepresentation of the Election Law, and such
departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices and it
is clear that there has been a free and honest expression of the popular
will, the law will be held to be directory and such departure will be
considered a harmless irregularity.
Facts:
An election for the office of governor of the Province of Rizal was
held on the 6th day of June,1916. At said election Jose Lino Luna,
Eulogio Rodriguez and Servando de los Angeles were candidates for
said office. The election was closed, the votes cast in the various
municipalities were counted, and a return was made by the inspectors
of said municipalities to the provincial board of canvassers, who, after
a canvass of said returns, proclaimed the following result:
That Eulogio Rodriguez received 4,321 votes; (b) Jose Lino Luna
4,157; (c) Servando de los Angeles 3,576 votes; and (d) that Eulogio
Rodriguez, having received a plurality of said votes ,was duly elected
governor of said province.
new trial was ordered. Additional evidence was adduced. By deducting
the said votes in the municipality of Taytay and those cast after six
o'clock p.m. in the municipality of Binangonan, Judge McMahon
concluded that Jose Lino Luna had received aplurality of the legal
votes cast at said election and ordered the provincial board of
canvassers to correct its canvass accordingly.
Issue:
Whether or not the ballots cast after the hour fixed for closing were
valid.
Held: YES.
The ballots were valid. The law provides that “at all elections, the polls
shall be open from seven O’ clock in the morning until six o’clock in
the afternoon.” The polls should be open and closed in strict accord
with said provisions. Voters who do not appear and offer to vote
within the hours designated by the law should not be permitted to vote
if the time for closing the polls has arrived. Upon the other hand, if the
voter is prevented, during the voting hours, from voting, and is not
permitted to vote by reason of the failure of the inspectors to do their
duty, then, certainly, in the absence of some fraud, neither such votes
nor the entire vote of the precinct should be annulled simply because
some votes were cast after the regular hours.
When the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a
prescribed form will be fataland such departure has been due to an
honest mistake or misrepresentation of the Election Law, and such
departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices and it
is clear that there has been a free and honest expression of the popular
will, the law will be held to be directory and such departure will be
considered a harmless irregularity.