FACTS: At a municipal election for president of Manapla, Occidental Negros, Vicente Ardosa received 156 votes and Isabelo Aguirre received 124 votes out of 280 cast. A protest was filed, and the provincial board investigated, finding that 107 of Ardosa’s ballots and 12 of Aguirre’s ballots were marked. The provincial board, deeming the election illegal due to the marked ballots, ordered a special election. The plaintiff, Isabelo Aguirre, contended that the marked ballots should have been rejected and a return made in his favor. The municipal election law at the time did not explicitly define the effect of marks on ballots, prohibit marks, or direct canvassers to report them, only requiring elections to be by secret ballot.

ISSUE: Whether or not the provincial board acted within its authority when it ordered a special election despite the plaintiff’s contention that marked ballots should have been rejected and a return made in his favor.

RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance vacating the injunction. The Court held that the provincial board was granted wide discretion by Section 13 of the Municipal Code to investigate protests, take evidence, and determine the outcome of an election. This discretion extended to declaring an election illegal and ordering a special election in cases of illegality or ineligibility. The Court reasoned that the multitude of marked ballots, sufficient to alter the apparent majority, went beyond mere irregularities or informalities and could constitute an illegality that invalidates the election. The Court emphasized that its interference with such decisions is limited to instances of abuse, bad faith, or manifest error, none of which were demonstrated in this case. Therefore, the provincial board’s determination and order for a special election were upheld as a fitting exercise of its statutory power.