Facts:

The case involves two petitions filed by Ernesto Villalon against Hon. Abundio Z. Arrieta, Arturo Serina, and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the mayoral election results for the Municipality of Kibawe, Bukidnon, held on November 14, 1967. The first petition (G.R. No. L-29177) seeks to annul an order dated April 1, 1968, from the respondent judge that declared null and void Villalon's proclamation as the duly elected Mayor, a proclamation issued by the municipal board of canvassers on March 14, 1968. This annulment was grounded on the claim that the proclamation was made in excess of the court's jurisdiction.

The second petition (G.R. No. L-29394) is a request for certiorari and prohibition to stop the COMELEC from investigating and determining the authenticity of the election returns from Precinct 20, which Villalon contended was outside the authority of the COMELEC following an earlier judicial recount. On November 17, 1967, Serina filed for a recount,

...

Facts:

Background of the Cases

• Two interrelated cases arose from the municipal mayoralty election held in Kibawe, Bukidnon on November 14, 1967.
• The cases are identified as:
• G.R. No. L-29177 – Petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the proclamation of petitioner Ernesto Villalon as duly elected mayor.
• G.R. No. L-29394 – Petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from investigating the election returns from Precinct 20.
• The petitions concern alleged discrepancies and tampering in the election returns which were purported to affect the canvassing of votes.

Judicial Recount Proceedings

• Respondent Serina, on November 17, 1967, filed a petition for a recount of votes in Precinct 20 alleging:
• Tampering of the returns.
• Discrepancy between the total number of votes recorded in the Minutes of Voting (419 votes) and the returns showing 642 votes.
• A significant number (525) of the votes in favor of petitioner Villalon were in dispute.
• The petition was amended on December 7, 1967 to add more detailed allegations, while a further amendment attempted on January 12, 1968 was denied by the court.
• Petitioner Villalon filed an answer on December 17, 1967 challenging:
• The jurisdiction of the court.
• The insufficiency of alleged facts to constitute a valid “cause of action” under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code.
• After a series of summary proceedings, the respondent judge initially granted the petition on February 7, 1968 but later reconsidered and denied it on March 13, 1968 upon a motion for reconsideration.

Proclamation and Subsequent Controversies

• On March 14, 1968, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner Villalon as the duly elected mayor—even before respondent Serina was in receipt of the denial order.
• This led to further actions:
• An omnibus motion for contempt against the board members.
• A separate petition for annulment of the proclamation was filed by respondent Serina.
• The respondent judge issued an order on April 1, 1968 annulling the proclamation.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration of that order, made on April 8, 1968, was denied on June 4, 1968.
• Petitioner Villalon then filed the present petition for certiorari challenging the annulment order on the ground that it was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction.

The Second Petition and Its Context

• In G.R. No. L-29394, petitioner sought an order to restrain the Comelec from:
• Taking delivery of the election returns for Precinct 20.
• Investigating the genuineness of those returns, particularly in light of a prior adverse finding by the Court of First Instance regarding the integrity of the electoral envelope.
• Petitioner’s argument was based on the notion that the Comelec’s review was beyond its jurisdiction since a judicial recount had been attempted and previously denied.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Finality of the Court’s Order

• Whether the respondent judge’s order annulling the proclamation of petitioner Villalon, issued on April 1, 1968, was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction.
• Whether such an order, coming from a summary judicial recount proceeding under Section 163, should be considered immediately executory and not appealable.

Scope of Judicial Versus Administrative Powers

• Whether the judicial recount process, which is designed for a prompt, mechanical counting of votes, should yield any final determination affecting the electoral outcome.
• The delineation of powers between:
• The court’s limited role (as prescribed by Section 163 and 168 of the Revised Election Code) in recount proceedings.
• The Comelec’s broader constitutional mandate to correct and verify election returns and enforce provisional canvassing rules.
• Whether findings made by the Court of First Instance in preliminary orders (e.g., the order of January 17, 1968 regarding a spurious copy) may have a controlling effect over Comelec actions.

Consistency of Petitioner's Legal Attacks

• Whether petitioner’s challenge to the Comelec in the second petition is legally sustainable given that the underlying judicial recount petition was already defeated on jurisdictional grounds.
• Whether reliance on earlier court findings, which were preparatory or non-final, can legally justify an injunction against the Comelec’s subsequent actions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)