This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-03-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is the true and lawful choice of the electorate.[20] Such a proceeding is usually instituted on the theory that the election returns, which are deemed prima facie to be true reports of how the electorate voted on election day[21] and which serve as the basis for proclaiming the winning candidate, do not accurately reflect the true will of the voters due to alleged irregularities that attended the counting of ballots. In a protest prosecuted on such a theory, the protestant ordinarily prays that the official count as reflected in the election returns be set aside in favor of a revision and recount of the ballots, the results of which should be made to prevail over those reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that "in an election contest where what is involved is the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves."[22] | |||||
|
2006-12-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]hrough estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon." Estoppel rests on this rule: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it."[49] | |||||