G.R. No. L-31566, L-31847, L-33105. February 29, 1972.
Rogelio O. Tiglao, petitioner, vs. The Commission on Elections, Cornelio Sanga and Board of Canvassers of Pampanga, respondents.

(Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

These consolidated cases stem from the 1969 congressional elections for the second district of Pampanga between petitioner Rogelio O. Tiglao and respondent Cornelio Sanga. The core dispute involves the correction of election returns from specific precincts. For Precinct 6, San Simon, the original return was altered, changing Sanga’s votes from 0 to 75. In its February 18, 1970 decision, the Supreme Court, finding the alteration unauthorized under the Election Code, directed the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to credit Sanga with “no vote” from that precinct. This decision became final.
Subsequently, Sanga filed a petition for correction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga, presided by Judge Malcolm Sarmiento. Despite the Supreme Court’s prior final ruling on Precinct 6, Judge Sarmiento ordered a recount of the ballots from that precinct’s ballot box and credited Sanga with 75 votes. Tiglao challenged this CFI order, arguing it contravened the final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance could validly order a recount and correction of the return for Precinct 6, San Simon, after the Supreme Court had issued a final and executory decision specifically disposing of that precinct’s return.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CFI’s order for a recount in Precinct 6 was invalid and could not supersede its final decision. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrines of finality of judgment and res judicata. The Court’s February 18, 1970 decision, which ordered that Sanga be credited with “no vote” from Precinct 6, constituted a definitive adjudication on the merits of the controversy regarding that specific return. This judgment had long become final and executory.
Justice Barredo, in his concurring opinion which elucidates the Court’s consensus, emphasized that Sanga’s remedy was to seek reconsideration of that specific ruling or to ask for the alternative relief of judicial correction within the same original proceeding. Having failed to do so and having instead insisted solely on giving legal effect to the altered return, Sanga was barred by res judicata from initiating a subsequent separate action for correction aimed at achieving a different result. The summary nature of election protests demands expediency and precludes a party from engaging in a “hit or miss” litigation strategy. Allowing a lower court to revisit and effectively reverse a matter already settled with finality by the Supreme Court would undermine judicial stability and the conclusive effect of final judgments. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s original directive for Precinct 6 must stand.