LINO LUNA vs.

RODRIGUEZ
Facts: An action based upon the alleged usurpation of a public office, that of governor of
the Province of Rizal, in which a demurrer was filed to the complaint. The question before
us arises on the issues framed by the demurrer. 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 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 results:
Eulogies Rodriguez- 4321 votes
Jose Lino - 4,157
Servando de los Angeles - 3,576
It proclaimed Eulogio Rodriguez, having received a plurality of said votes, as duly elected
governor of said province. Jose Lino Luna presented a protest in the CFI and a new trial
was ordered. Additional evidence was adduced. Judge McMahon found that the
inspectors in Binangonan did not close the polls at 6 o’clock p.m., and that a large number
of persons voted after that time. The judge then directed that the total vote of Rodriguez
be reduced, without ascertaining how many had been cast for Rodriguez and how many
for Luna.

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. The ballot of the innocent voter should not be annulled
and he should not be deprived of his participation in the affairs of his government when
he was guilty of no illegal act or fraud. The election inspectors should be held to comply
strictly with the law. If they violate the law, they should be punished and not the innocent
voter.
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.