G.R. No. L-7312 February 26, 1954
TITO V. TIZON, Y OTROS, recurrentes, vs. CECILIO DOROJA Y OTROS, recurridos.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance, on December 23, 1953, issued an order directing the boards of election inspectors for Precincts Nos. 5B, 8, 12, 15, and 16 of the municipal district of Matuguinao, Samar, to immediately correct their respective election returns in a specified manner. The court denied a similar petition for the correction of the return from Precinct 14 of Gandara. The petitioners (recurrentes) sought relief from this order. The underlying controversy involved candidates for Representative of the second district of Samar, including Tito V. Tizon and Marciano Lim. It was alleged that in the returns from several precincts, the original number of votes for these candidates had been erased and altered, increasing the count for Tizon and decreasing it for Lim. Not all members of the involved boards of inspectors agreed to the corrections; in six precincts, one inspector objected, and in one precinct, two inspectors objected, submitting sworn statements to the court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted within its jurisdiction under Article 154 of the Revised Election Code in ordering the correction of the election returns despite a lack of unanimity among the board of inspectors and the controversial nature of the alleged errors.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and DISSOLVED the writ of preliminary injunction issued on December 11, 1953. The Court held that the lower court acted within the jurisdiction conferred by Article 154 of the Revised Election Code. It ruled that the lower court’s resolution, which rejected the testimony of voters regarding their votes for the office of Representative as proof in the summary proceeding, was in accordance with law. Furthermore, the Court declared that the lower court’s decision was final and unappealable, citing precedents (Aguilar y Casapao vs. Navarro, 55 Phil., 898; Clarin vs. Juez Alo). The majority opinion implicitly held that unanimity among inspectors was not required to seek a correction under Section 154.
SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Bautista Angelo dissented. He argued that when at least one inspector disputes that an error was committed, the issue becomes controversial and falls outside the court’s jurisdiction under Section 154. He contended that such a controversial issue would require a protracted hearing, delay proclamation, and rely on secondary evidence, as the court cannot examine the ballots under this provision. This, he believed, would open the door to collusion and fraud. He maintained that Section 154 applies only to clerical errors that are not disputed. He cited the precedent of Benitez vs. Paredes and Dizon, 52 Phil., 10, where the Supreme Court ruled that a court lacks jurisdiction when inspectors do not unanimously agree on a correction, as the case becomes contentious. He voted to grant the petition.