G.R. No. 35773 - Board of Election Inspectors vs. Sison

The Board of Election Inspectors for the Second Precinct of Bongabon, Mindoro, represented by a majority consisting of Jose Aguilar (Chairman) and Demetrio Casapao, along with Arturo A. Ignacio.

Pedro Ma. Sison, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro;
The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Mindoro, composed of the Provincial Treasurer Domingo Oloroso (President), the Provincial Fiscal Catalino Cailipan, and Captain Eladio Lasam;
Juan Navarro, an intervenor presenting objections.

The petition is an original application for a writ of mandamus directed against the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro to compel him to hear the petition for correcting the election returns.
Additionally, a preliminary mandatory injunction is sought against the provincial board of canvassers to prevent them from canvassing the election returns based solely on the incomplete inspectors’ statement, insisting instead on considering all four copies (or the amended version as ordered by the court).
The petition seeks to remedy irregularities in the election returns for Precinct No. 2, Bongabon, where the petitioners claim that errors (including an arbitrary number of votes for the office of provincial governor) were made in preparing the inspectors’ statement.

The issue arose after the court below had rendered a ruling on the inspectors’ petition for correction of the election returns sent to the provincial treasurer.
Prior to the filing of the bill of exceptions, the petitioners instituted these mandamus proceedings.
Although the printed argument by the petitioners asserted that the provincial board of canvassers’ answer admitted all the facts stated in the petition, the respondents (including the judge and members of the board) denied most of those facts and raised various special defenses.
The petition was argued concurrently with another related case (G.R. No. 35800) but was rendered in a separate decision for clarity.

The lower court heard both parties, taking into account their pleadings and exhibits attached to both the petition and the objections.
The judge exercised his discretion under the auspices of Section 465 of the Election Law and denied the petition for correction of election returns.
The petitioners pointed to previous cases (e.g., Benitez vs. Paredes and Dizon, De Castro vs. Salas and Santiago, Galang vs. Miranda and De Leon) to support their contentions regarding the authorities and procedures in question.

Can the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro be compelled by mandamus to decide the election inspectors’ petition for correcting the election returns in a prescribed manner under Section 465 of the Election Law?
Does the discretionary nature of the judicial power to grant or deny correction of returns preclude the issuance of a writ of mandamus?

Will a prohibitory injunction lie to compel the provincial board of canvassers to refrain from canvassing with only the incomplete inspectors’ statement?
Must the board consider all four copies of the statement or the amended statement as authorized by the lower court?

Is the petition properly filed given that the respondents denied significant facts and raised special defenses, including the issue of one inspector’s opposition?
Does the procedural posture (with the earlier denial in G.R. No. 35800) bar the present pursuit of mandamus and injunctive relief?