G.R. No. L-22502-03; June 30, 1964
MAUYAG MATANOG, petitioner, vs. HON. CRISTOBAL ALEJANDRO as Judge of the CFI of Lanao del Sur, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF MARANTAO, Lanao del Sur, DECAMPONG COMO as Mun. Treasurer of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, and COTA CORNEL, respondents.

FACTS

In the November 12, 1963 elections for Mayor of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, petitioner Mauyag Matanog and respondent Cota Cornel were candidates. A controversy arose from Precinct No. 9. The Municipal Board of Canvassers was presented with an election return (Exhibit K) showing Cornel receiving 297 votes. However, a tally board (Exhibit J) and a missing copy of the return sent to another candidate indicated Cornel received only 157 votes. Matanog filed a petition for judicial recount, alleging the return was prepared unlawfully outside the polling place and the vote increase for Cornel was fraudulent, which would affect the election result. Cornel filed a mandamus action to compel the canvass of all returns, including Exhibit K. The trial court consolidated the cases.
The evidence revealed conflicting accounts. Matanog’s evidence suggested the Board of Inspectors finished counting by midnight of November 14 but could not immediately prepare returns, and a completed return was later handed to a COMELEC representative at 7:00 a.m. on November 15. Cornel’s witnesses testified the official tally boards were different from Exhibit J, the return was prepared immediately after counting, placed in the ballot box, and later retrieved in the presence of authorities. The trial court dismissed Matanog’s petition for recount.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for a judicial recount of votes in Precinct No. 9.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the proper remedy and the nature of the evidence presented. A judicial recount under the Revised Election Code is warranted only for discrepancies between the copies of the election return itself, as required by law. The Court, citing Villacarlos v. Jimenez and Nataño v. Moya, clarified that the remedy does not apply to discrepancies between an election return and other documents like a tally sheet or a certificate of votes given to a watcher.
In this case, the alleged discrepancy was between the official election return (Exhibit K) and a tally board (Exhibit J) or a missing copy sent to a third party. These are not the authentic copies of the return contemplated by law to trigger a judicial recount. The Court found that Exhibit K, the return in question, was not shown to have discrepancies among its own multiple copies. Therefore, Matanog’s proper recourse was not a judicial recount but a different election protest, which he remained free to pursue. Furthermore, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and any alleged errors in its factual or legal conclusions, absent grave abuse of discretion, are not correctible by certiorari. No such abuse was demonstrated.