G.R. No. L-16327; July 29, 1920
PIO VALENZUELA, petitioner, vs. BARTOLOME REVILLA, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, and JUAN B. CARLOS, respondents.

FACTS:
On March 31, 1920, the Supreme Court issued a mandate directing the respondent Judge to order the opening of certain ballot boxes for inspection in an election protest, at such time and place as he may deem opportune or convenient. More than three months later, the interested parties moved to amend the Supreme Court’s mandate to require the Judge to issue the necessary orders “forthwith” or “immediately,” alleging undue delay. The opposing parties contended that the delay was due to the Judge’s heavy workload and absence from the province, and that he had not yet found it convenient to act.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court should amend its final mandate to include the words “forthwith” or “immediately” to compel the respondent Judge to promptly issue the order for the opening of the ballot boxes.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the motion. It held that the original mandate had already become final and was not subject to amendment except for clerical corrections. Even if it were not final, amendment was unnecessary because the omission of “forthwith” or “immediately” did not leave the respondent Judge with discretion to indefinitely postpone issuing the order. The mandate required prompt compliance within a reasonable timea few days at mostand imposed a duty to act without unnecessary delay. The discretion granted to the Judge regarding the time and place of opening the ballot boxes was a sound judicial discretion, to be exercised with regard to the parties’ right to a speedy resolution and statutory provisions on election contests. The Court expressed concern over the prolonged delay and reserved the right for the parties to initiate further proceedings if compliance was not secured within ten days.