G.R. No. L-34427 April 11, 1972
ZAFIRO RESPICIO, petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., as Presiding Judge, CFI of Davao, Branch I, and FRANCISCO TESORERO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zafiro Respicio and private respondent Francisco Tesorero were opposing candidates for the last councilor seat in Davao City in the November 9, 1971 elections. Respondent Tesorero filed a petition for judicial recount in the Court of First Instance, alleging discrepancies affecting 29 precincts. The precincts were grouped into three categories. In Group I (22 precincts), Tesorero alleged discrepancies between the written words/figures and the tally portion of the election returns, showing an excess of 35 votes for Respicio. In Group II (6 precincts), similar discrepancies allegedly showed a reduction of 7 votes for Tesorero. In Group III (Precinct 470-J), Tesorero claimed that during the canvass, the tally clerks misheard Respicio’s votes as 40 instead of the 20 clearly written in the return. The respondent judge gave due course to the petition. Respicio filed the instant certiorari and prohibition petition, arguing the lower court acted without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with jurisdiction in ordering a judicial recount based on the alleged discrepancies between the tally portion and the written words/figures in the election returns, and the claim of a misheard vote announcement.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the respondent judge’s orders. The Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order a recount under Section 206 of the Election Code of 1971 (Republic Act No. 6388). The legal provision authorizes a judicial recount only in two specific instances: (1) discrepancies in two or more authentic copies of election returns from a precinct, or (2) discrepancies in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the same return. Crucially, the law refers to a conflict between the written words and the written figures within the return itself. The alleged discrepancy between the written words/figures and the separate tally portion of the return does not fall under this statutory definition. The tally sheets are merely procedural aids for the board of inspectors to arrive at the final count; the official results are the words and figures entered in the return. Therefore, no jurisdictional discrepancy under Section 206 existed for Groups I and II. For Precinct 470-J, the allegation was a mere “mishearing” during the canvass, with no discrepancy in the return itself. The proper remedy was for the board of canvassers, which was not yet functus officio, to re-examine the clear return under Section 204 of the Code, not a judicial recount. The restraining order was made permanent.