You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1a44?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PABLO C. CORTES ET AL. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1a44?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1a44}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show as cited by other cases (1 times)
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 46065, Aug 09, 1938 ]

PABLO C. CORTES ET AL. v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA +

DECISION

66 Phil. 89

[ G.R. No. 46065, August 09, 1938 ]

PABLO C. CORTES ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

LAUREL, J.:

This is a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal to proceed with the hearing of the election contest filed against the other respondents by the petitioners herein. Petitioner Pablo C. Cortes and respondents Deogracias Luciano, Sabino Gutierrez, and Irineo Aviado were candidates, in the elections held on December 14, 1937, for the office of municipal vice-mayor of Makati, Rizal. The other petitioners and the other respondents, except the respondent judge, were candidates, in the same elections, for the office of councilor, in the same municipality and province. A motion of protest was filed in time by the petitioners herein but was dismissed by the respondent judge, upon motion by the protestees (the other respondents herein), on the ground of failure to allege the jurisdictional fact that the said protestees were proclaimed elected candidates. Reconsideration of the order of dismissal was sought but was refused.

The respondent judge correctly states that failure to allege in the motion of protest that the protestees were proclaimed elected candidates is fatal to the protest. (Manalo vs. Sevilla, 24 Phil., 609; Ferrer vs. Gutierrez David and Lucot, 43 Phil., 795; Yumul vs. Palma, 52 Phil., 412; Saldana rs. Consunji, 52 Phil., 433.) An examination of the motion of protest, however, shows that it contains allegations from which the jurisdictional fact of proclamation may be clearly inferred. In paragraph 4 of the motion, it is alleged:

"4. Que, en la proclamacion verificada por la Junta Municipal de Escrutinio en 18 de diciembre de 1937, aparacen los siguientes votos a favor de los recurrentes y recurridos respectivamente:

"RECURRENTES
 
   
Votes
 
  Pablo C. Cortes
1,773
 
  Marcos Concepcion
1,009
 
  Dionisio Afable
996
 
  Tomas Gonzalez
1,008
 
  Ventura Canilao
900
 
  Fidel Dionisio
965
 
  Tomas Estacio
845
 
  Maximo Arcangel
750
 
  Monico Policarpio
796
 
   
 
 
"RECURRIDOS
 
       
  Deogracias Luciano
2,017
 
  Sabino Gutierrez
610
 
  Irineo Aviado
662
 
  Felix Blanco
1,781
 
  Diego Benito
1,681
 
  Amado E. Diaz
1,628
 
  Martin Santos
1,478
 
  Pedro Santiago
1,369
 
  Luis Anastasio
1,365
 
  Eliseo Viray
1,164
 
  Jose Cunanan
1,005"
 

From the foregoing portion of the motion of protest, it is obvious that the victorious candidates were the protestees, except Sabino Gutierrez and Irineo Aviado, and that said candidates were duly proclaimed. The language used could have been more clear and precise but the fact of proclamation of the protestees is there. Precision in pleadings is desirable but it is not to be strictly required. A single fact may be alleged in different ways with the same effect.

The writ prayed for is hereby granted, without any pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.


tags