G.R. No. L-28349 - Calo vs. Enage

The case involves a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus filed by petitioners Consuelo V. Calo, Jose T. Gonzalez, Pastor D. Ago, Genaro B. Asis, and Vicente C. Rosales.
The petition seeks to annul an order dated December 1, 1967, issued by Judge Manuel L. Enage of the Court of First Instance of Agusan, Branch II.
The challenged order directed a judicial recount of votes in certain municipalities in Agusan during the November 14, 1967 elections and restrained the provincial board of canvassers from canvassing the returns for the offices of Governor, Vice Governor, and board members.

The NP (Nacionalista Party) respondents – Rafael C. Aquino (candidate for Governor), Basilisa K. Atega (candidate for Vice Governor), Sulpicio R. Lagnada, Eduardo D. Mercado, and Noli G. Cortel (candidates for board members) – initiated the petition before Judge Enage.
They based their petition on alleged discrepancies between two sets of election returns: one copy marked “COPY FOR THE NACIONALISTA PARTY” and another copy transmitted to the Provincial Treasurer of Agusan.
The respondents claimed that the discrepancies resulted in a higher number of votes on the NP copy, materially affecting the election’s outcome and warranting a judicial recount that would potentially declare them the duly-elected officials.

The petitioners, who were the other candidates for the contested offices (referred to as NP unofficial candidates), opposed the judicial recount.
They argued that Judge Enage exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion by ordering a recount before the provincial board of canvassers had even commenced canvassing the returns.
They further contended that the discrepancy between the NP copy and the provincial treasurer’s copy does not qualify as a ground for a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code.

In response to the petition and given the urgency of the matter, a temporary restraining order was issued on December 4, 1967.

The TRO enjoined the enforcement of the lower court’s writ of preliminary injunction and halted the recounting of ballots, while still allowing the canvassing to proceed.

The canvassing of election returns was completed on December 13, 1967, although no proclamation of winners had been made pending the resolution of this case.

Section 163 of the Revised Election Code governs the procedure for a judicial recount.

It stipulates that if differing vote totals appear in different copies of the precinct statement, which affect the results, the Court of First Instance may order a recount solely for determining the true vote count.
The provision explicitly requires that notice be given to all affected candidates.

The context also involves Section 150, which prescribes the preparation of four (or in some cases additional) copies of the election returns:

An additional resolution by the Commission on Elections provides for extra copies for the major political parties, but these are not part of the official copies required for a judicial recount.

Whether Judge Manuel L. Enage acted within his jurisdiction in ordering a judicial recount prior to the completion of the canvassing by the provincial board of canvassers.
Whether the order to recount was premature and an abuse of discretion.

Whether the alleged discrepancy between the extra copy (marked “COPY FOR THE NACIONALISTA PARTY”) and the official copy transmitted to the Provincial Treasurer constitutes a valid basis for a judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code.
Whether such a discrepancy falls within the statutory limits or should be restricted solely to discrepancies among the copies prescribed by Section 150 of the Code.

Whether ordering a judicial recount on such grounds might delay the proclamation of the winning candidates beyond the date prescribed for the beginning of their term.
The potential for candidates to manipulate extra copies and thereby delay or obstruct the orderly transition of office.