Tango v. Alejandro
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an alleged discrepancy in the vote count for the mayoral election in Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur. The petitioner, Hadji Aziz Lumna Tango, claims that the official election return in the possession of the Municipal Treasurer listed 171 votes for him, while the Nacionalista Party's copy showed only 131 votes. This difference was significant enough to affect the outcome of the mayoral race. 2. Procedural History: Following the discovery of the discrepancy, the election inspectors of Precinct No. 5 formally requested permission from the Court of First Instance to correct the official election return. They asserted that the figure '171' was a clerical error and that the true number of votes for Tango was 131. The respondent judge, Hon. Cristobal Alejandro, after hearing the parties and reviewing the evidence, authorized the correction. Consequently, the court denied Tango's subsequent request to open the ballot box and recount the ballots for Precinct No. 5. 3. The Petition: This petition was filed with the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari to compel the respondent judge to order a recount of the ballots in Precinct No. 5. The petitioner argues that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to allow a recount after authorizing the correction of the election return, thereby preventing a verification of the actual votes cast.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to order a recount of the ballots in Precinct No. 5 of Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur, after authorizing the correction of a clerical error in the election return.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that grave abuse of discretion cannot be imputed to the respondent judge in his refusal to direct the re-opening of the ballot box in Precinct No. 5. The Court noted that the judge had heard the parties and assessed the evidence presented before making his decision. The evidence showed a clerical error in the election return, and all members of the Board of Election Inspectors and the poll clerk had formally requested the correction. The judge's authorization of the correction, based on these circumstances, was a valid exercise of his discretion. Therefore, since the judge acted within his authority and based on demonstrated facts, his refusal to order a recount, which is a more drastic measure, was justified and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting the intervention of the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to establish the necessary grounds for the extraordinary remedy sought.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the respondent judge in refusing to order a recount of ballots. The Court found that the judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in authorizing the correction of a clerical error in an election return, where the error was properly shown, and all members of the Board of Election Inspectors and the poll clerk requested the correction. The judge's action was based on evidence and a hearing, and thus, the petition for certiorari to compel a recount was denied.