Torres V. Ribo

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.