Facts:

The case of Jose Sol Baloria vs. Hon. Onofre Sison Abalos, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga del Norte, Jacobo S. Amatong, and the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte arose out of the municipal elections held on November 14, 1967. Both Jose Sol Baloria and Jacobo S. Amatong were candidates for the position of councilor in Dipolog. During the canvassing, the Municipal Board of Canvassers discovered a discrepancy in the election returns for precinct 18, where the municipal treasurer's copy indicated 37 votes for Amatong, while the copies belonging to the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Liberal Party (LP), as well as the tally sheet, indicated 47 votes for him. This discrepancy led the Board to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate. In response, Amatong filed a petition with the CFI of Zamboanga del Norte on November 23, 1967, seeking a recount of the votes in precinct 18 due to this inconsistency. Baloria, w

...

Facts:

Background of the Election Dispute

• The case arises from the election held on November 14, 1967, for councilor in Dipolog, Zamboanga del Norte.
• Jose Sol Baloria (petitioner) and Jacobo S. Amatong (respondent) were among the candidates.
• A discrepancy was noted in precinct 18’s election returns.

The Discrepancy in the Election Returns

• The municipal treasurer’s copy of the election return indicated that Amatong received 37 votes.
• The Nacionalista Party (NP) and Liberal Party (LP) copies of the return, along with the tally sheet, showed Amatong receiving 47 votes.
• Due to this material difference affecting the contest for the eighth councilor, the municipal board of canvassers suspended the proclamation.

Actions and Motions Before the Trial Court

• On November 23, Amatong filed a motion for a judicial recount of precinct 18 based on the discrepancy.
• Baloria moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the copies used (NP and LP copies and the tally sheet) were not eligible under the provisions for judicial recount.
• Baloria’s motion to dismiss and subsequent verbal motion for reconsideration were both denied by the court.
• Baloria then sought to introduce the provincial treasurer’s copy to support his claim that the municipal treasurer’s copy was correct, but the court denied this as well.
• A motion for a subpoena duces tecum for the production of the relevant copies was similarly denied.

Grounds for the Petition

• Baloria filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul the orders of Judge Onofre Sison Abalos on the basis that the recount order was issued:
• In excess of jurisdiction.
• With grave abuse of discretion.
• His primary argument was that there was no valid evidence to establish the discrepancy required to warrant a judicial recount under the provisions of the Revised Election Code.

Evidentiary Submissions and Implicit Admissions

• Amatong supported his motion with affidavits from the precinct chairman, the poll clerk, and a board member—all attesting that he received 47 votes in precinct 18.
• Baloria’s own memorandum implied the existence of a discrepancy, even as he argued it was not legally tenable to order a recount on that basis.

Issue:

• Whether the discrepancy between the municipal treasurer’s copy of the election return and the copies provided to the NP and LP as well as the tally sheet can serve as a legal basis for a judicial recount.

• Whether extra copies of the election return (those not prescribed under Section 150 of the Election Code) may be compared with the municipal treasurer’s copy to justify a recount.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)