This is a petition for mandamus filed by Cenon C. Muñoz et al., against  the Court of First Instance of Rizal et al., praying, for the reasons given,  that a writ of mandamus be  issued requiring the  court to try the election  contest instituted by  the petitioners  against the respondents in civil case No. 4804 of said court, according to the substantial rights of the parties, to set aside the order of dismissal, and to decide said contest upon  the merits,  with  costs against the respondents.

The following relevant facts are  necessary to decide this petition:

On June 18,  1931, the herein petitioners filed an election protest (Exhibit A) against the respondents, in the Court of  First Instance of  Rizal, praying  the  court  to  fix the bond to be given  by  said contestants in order  to have their protest heard, and to order  that the  list of voters, the spoiled and valid  ballot boxes, the unused ballots and other documents used in precincts 1 to 25 of the municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal, during the last general election, be immediately forwarded to said court.   On the same day, that is,  June  18, 1931, the said Court of First Instance of Rizal fixed the bond to be given by the aforesaid contestants at P12,500 (Exhibit R-2).  On the 20th of the same month, the contestants presented an undertaking (Exhibit R-3) signed by three sureties which lacked P130 of the amount fixed by the court, which the contestants agreed to complete later.  Meanwhile, the proper summonses were issued  and returned; and it  was ordered that the spoiled and valid ballot  boxes and  other documents  used in the contested election, be forwarded to the court in accordance with the contestants' petition.  On  June 27,  1931, at the instance of the  contestees, the respondent Court of  First Instance of Rizal entered an order dismissing the contest on the ground that over a week had elapsed without the contestants'  having presented the bond required  (Exhibit G).  On June 29, 1931, the  contestants filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal (Exhibit H). While this motion was pending, on July 8, 1931, the contestants deposited with the clerk  of the Court of First Instance of Rizal the P130 lacking to complete the bond, and the said clerk accepted the amount upon being expressly, though orally,  authorized by the court to do so.   On July 15,  1931, the respondent Court of First Instance of Rizal, passing upon the aforementioned  motion  for  reconsideration of June 27, 1931, denied it.

In Hontiveros vs. Mobo (39 Phil., 230), and  Ancheta and Aguilar vs. Judge of  First Instance of La Union and Verpeles (40 Phil., 73), this court held that the requirements of the  law relative to the giving of a bond to answer for the costs and expenses in election contests are  not jurisdictional.   And Lucero  vs. De  Guzman (45  Phil.,  852), the following was said:

"It is true that section 482 of the Administrative Code prescribes that before the court shall entertain an election contest or admit  an appeal, the contestant  or  appellant shall give bond, in an amount to be fixed by the court, with two sureties satisfactory to it, conditioned that he will pay all  expenses and costs incident to such motion  or appeal. Under this provision,  which is undoubtedly  mandatory, the court cannot lawfully proceed with a contest or admit an appeal  in a contest case  until the necessary bond has been given.  But it does not  follow that the failure to give the bond destroys the jurisdiction of the court.  (Nicholls vs. Barrick, 27 Colo., 432.)  The jurisdiction of the court over the  contest attaches when a motion containing proper jurisdictional averments is filed  within the time prescribed by law; and the jurisdiction of the court cannot thereafter be determined  by what the  court  itself may  or may not do.  It has been accordingly held  to be no error for the court before which a contest is pending to permit  a contestant to  file  a new  bond  for  costs,  where  the  first  is considered  insufficient.   (Davis  vs. Jones,  123  Ala.,  647.)"

After a  bond has been filed, it may be supplemented  or substituted by another, if at any time it is found insufficient. In the present  case the bond has not only not been disapproved by  the  respondent court, but the  latter, upon the strength of it, proceeded with the contest, issuing the proper summonses and ordering that the ballot boxes and all the documents used in the contested elections be transmitted to it.  Furthermore, notwithstanding the order of dismissal, and  while the motion for the reconsideration of such order was  pending, the court authorized the clerk to accept the P130 needed to complete the bond; this authorization was really an annulment of the order of  dismissal which had been based precisely upon the insufficiency of the bond filed.

Inasmuch as the respondent court had proceeded to take cognizance of the protest, by summoning the  respondents and ordering the transmission of the spoiled and valid ballot boxes as well as all the other documents  of election, and had permitted the defect in the bond to be cured, it  was in duty bound to  continue with the trial of the case, having acquired jurisdiction to do so.

Wherefore, the writ prayed for is hereby granted, and setting aside the order of dismissal of June 27, 1931, it is ordered that the Court of First Instance of Rizal reinstate civil case No. 4804, the election contest, continuing the proceedings  thereon,  and  deciding  it  upon the  merits.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm,  Villamor, Romualdez,  and Imperial, JJ., concur.