G.R. No. 26423 , September 24, 1926
ROSENDO E. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, FRANCISCO ADVINCULA, ISIDRO MARTINEZ and TOMAS E. DIAZ, respondents.

FACTS

In the election for Municipal President of Cavite, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Francisco Advincula as the elected candidate based on the following votes: Rosendo E. Santos (874), Francisco Advincula (915), Isidro E. Martinez (903), and Tomas E. Diaz (233). Isidro Martinez filed an election protest against Advincula, with Santos and Diaz being notified as interested parties. Santos did not file an answer or actively participate in the protest proceedings. After a revision of ballots, the trial court declared Advincula the winner with 845 votes against Martinez’s 828 votes. The court’s decision did not make any finding regarding the votes of Santos. Santos then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that based on the judicial canvass, he should be proclaimed the winner with a plurality of 29 votes over Advincula. The trial court denied the motion. In its order denying reconsideration, the court explained that it had, in fact, considered objections to 444 ballots credited to Santos during the revision and found them invalid. It specifically recounted ballots from two precincts and found that at least 75 votes should be deducted from Santos’s total. The court concluded that even after the judicial revision, Advincula still had more votes than Santos. Santos then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in proclaiming Advincula and in recounting ballots after the promulgation of its decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in proclaiming Francisco Advincula as the elected candidate without making a specific finding on the votes of Rosendo E. Santos in its original decision.
2. Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by recounting ballots when acting on Santos’s motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for certiorari.

1. On the Failure to Make a Specific Finding on Santos’s Votes: The Court held that while the trial court initially erred in not making a pronouncement regarding the votes obtained by Santos (an interested party who was notified of the protest), this error was one of law, not jurisdiction. The court had the jurisdiction to decide the protest and proclaim the rightful winner. Furthermore, this error was corrected in the order denying reconsideration, where the court explained its findings regarding the invalidity of many votes credited to Santos. The Court cited *Manalo v. Sevilla*, stating that Santos, as a candidate who received votes and was notified, was a proper party to the protest without needing to file a separate intervention. The trial court had the duty to ascertain the true result of the election among all candidates involved.

2. On the Recount of Ballots in the Motion for Reconsideration: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction by recounting ballots when resolving the motion for reconsideration. The Court affirmed that trial courts have the inherent power to re-examine evidence before them when deciding a motion for reconsideration. This practice, common in ordinary actions, applies equally to election contests. The recount was a valid exercise of the court’s authority to correct its findings and ensure a just resolution based on the evidence of record.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a writ of certiorari is not a remedy for correcting errors of fact or law committed within the court’s jurisdiction. It is only available for acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The trial court’s actions did not meet this standard. Therefore, the petition was denied, with costs against petitioner Santos.