Torres v.

Ribo

Facts: Bernardo Torres, Mamerto Ribo and Alejandro Balderian were the
gubernatorial candidates of Leyte in the 1947 election. Mamerto Ribo was then the
incumbent governor while the two other candidates were members of the
provincial board. Under Sec. 158 of the Revised Election Code, they were supposed
so sit as members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers but since they were
candidates, they were thus disqualified to sit therein. Pursuant to Sec. 158 of the
same code, the COMELEC, thru a telegram dated November 20th, sent to the
provincial treasurer who received the telegram on the 21st, appointed the division
schools superintendent, the district engineer as well as the district health officer to
replace the disqualified PBC members. It was indicated that they could assume the
posts as soon as they receive their appointment. Unfortunately, the division
schools superintendent and the district engineer were not able to receive the
appointment as they were in the other part of the province until the 24th.
Meanwhile, on November 22, the provincial treasurer, the provincial fiscal, the
acting district health officer, the chief clerk of the division superintendent of
schools as well as the assistant civil engineer in the district engineer’s office
canvassed the votes for the provincial governor and the other officials and then
proclaimed Ribo as the duly elected governor. On the 24th the PBC convened again
but this time, the district engineer and the division schools superintendent
attended after canvassing the votes, they declared Ribo as the winning candidate.
The issue of whether the chief clerk of the division superintendent of schools and
the assistant civil engineer in the district engineer’s office were lawful members of
the PBC. The first trial judge who handled the case held they were not but the
second judge to which the case was transferred answered in the affirmative saying
that it would be absurd it they would not be considered as being authorized by
their superiors considering their respective positions.

1st Issue: WON the two may be considered as lawful members of the PBC.

Held: No. There is no evidence to show that they were authorized by their
respective superiors to represent them in the canvassing of votes. And even if they
were indeed authorized, it would not make them lawful members of the PBC. The
law expressly mandates who are the qualified members of the PBC and it also
provided those who can be substitute members in case of disqualification. The
enumeration is exclusive and no other person can be appointed as such. The
appointment of a substitute member is personal and restricted and his powers
must be performed directly and in person by the appointee. An officer to whom
discretion is entrusted can not delegate it to another. The powers of the board of
canvassers are not purely ministerial, as the court below erroneously holds. The
board exercise quasi-judicial functions, such as the function and duty to determine
whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns signed by the
proper officers.

2nd Issue: Whether the two could at least be deemed as de facto officers
Held: No. An officer de facto is one who has the reputation of being the
officer he assumes to be, and yet is not a good officer in point of law. He must
have acted as an officer for such a length of time, under color of title and under
such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence by the public and public
authorities, as to afford a presumption of appointment or election, and induce
people, without injury, and relying on the supposition that he is the officer he
assumes to be, to submit to or invoke his action. Tizon and Pascual did not possess
any of these conditions. They acted without any appointment, commission or any
color of title to the office. There was no acquiescence, public or private, in their
discharge of the position. In fact the very person most greatly affected by their
assumption of the office, Bernardo Torres, was not notified and was not unaware of
it.