G.R. No. L-32963 September 30, 1971
FEDERICO B. ABLAN, SR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE A. MADARANG and DR. DAMASO T. SAMONTE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federico B. Ablan, Sr. and respondent Dr. Damaso T. Samonte were candidates for delegate in the first district of Ilocos Norte for the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The canvass showed Ablan obtaining 15,415 votes (second place) and Samonte 12,802 votes (third place). Antonio V. Raquiza, who garnered the highest votes, was proclaimed without objection. Subsequently, Samonte filed a petition for judicial recount in the Court of First Instance presided by respondent Judge Jose A. Madarang. Samonte alleged widespread irregularities in specific precincts, including tampering of returns, misreading and illegal adjudication of votes in favor of Ablan, interchange of vote totals, and fabrication of returns.
Ablan filed a motion to dismiss, contending the petition failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements under Section 6(H) of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act. This provision authorized a judicial recount only upon a showing of either: (1) another authentic copy of the returns submitted to the Board of Canvassers giving a candidate a different number of votes, or (2) a difference in the words and figures of the number of votes for any candidate, provided such difference affects the election result. Ablan argued that Samonte’s allegations of fraud and irregularities did not constitute the requisite showing of contradictory authentic returns or a words-and-figures discrepancy. Respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting Ablan to file this certiorari and prohibition petition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss and entertaining the petition for judicial recount, despite the petition’s failure to allege the specific statutory grounds required under Section 6(H) of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the authority of courts to order a judicial recount in elections for Constitutional Convention delegates is purely statutory and must be strictly construed. The governing law, Section 6(H) of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act, explicitly limited the grounds for a recount to only two scenarios: (1) the existence of another authentic copy of the election returns showing a different vote count, or (2) a discrepancy between the words and figures in the number of votes for a candidate. Crucially, either scenario must affect the election result.
The Court found that Samonte’s petition did not allege any of these specific statutory conditions. Instead, it pleaded general allegations of fraud, tampering, and irregularities in the preparation of the returns. Such allegations, while potentially grounds for an election protest, did not fall within the narrow scope of a judicial recount as defined by the Act. Since the petition on its face did not invoke the court’s limited recount jurisdiction, respondent Judge had no authority to proceed. His denial of the motion to dismiss constituted a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The Court emphasized that the summary remedy of judicial recount could not be expanded into a full-blown examination of election irregularities, which is the proper subject of an election contest. Therefore, the writs of certiorari and prohibition were issued, nullifying the respondent Judge’s orders and restraining further proceedings on the recount petition.