G.R. No. 12934. December 08, 1917
PIO ANCHETA, PROTESTANT AND APPELLEE, VS. MAURO ORTIZ ET AL., PROTESTEES. MAURO ORTIZ, APPELLANT.
JOHNSON, J.:
held in the Province of La Union for the office of governor of said province;
that at said election the protestant and protestees were each candidates; that
at the close of said election the provincial board of canvassers, after a
canvass of the votes of the respective municipalities of said province, declared
that each of said candidates had received the following number of votes:
Pio Ancheta Mauro Ortiz Gabriel Tabora Vicente Valpiedad
Immediately on the announcement of the result of said election by said
provincial board of canvassers the said Pio Ancheta filed the present protest in
the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union. The protestant alleged
that certain irregularities and frauds had been practiced in the following
municipalities: Bacnotan, San Juan, San Fernando, Bauang, Agoo, Balaoan, Balacan
and Tubao.
The protestant alleged that if the illegal votes which had been cast in said
municipalities were rejected from the total number of votes cast, that he (Pio
Ancheta) would have received a majority of the votes cast.
Each of the candidates were duly notified of the presentation of said
protest.
On the 26th day of July, 1916, the protestee, Mauro Ortiz, presented his
answer, in which he interposed a general and special defense. In his general
defense he denied generally and specifically all of the facts alleged in said
protests. In his special defense he alleged that certain frauds and
irregularities had been practiced by the municipal board of canvassers in the
following municipalities: Luna, Bangar, Santo Tomas and Caba.
On the 26th day of July, 1916, the court appointed, by consent of the
parties, the following commissioners for the purpose of hearing the proof to be
adduced by the respective parties relating to the frauds and irregularities
alleged in their respective protest and answer: Rafael Lete, Cosme Abenoja and
H. W. Widdees. Said commissioners entered upon the performance of their duties
on the 31st day of July, 1916, and continued their work up until about the 18th
day of August, when they made their report. Their report is a very carefully
prepared statement relating to the questions presented by the protest and
answer. After hearing the respective parties and considering their proof, and an
examination of the ballots cast in each of the said municipalities to which the
protest related, the commissioners reached the following conclusion:
“(a) That Mauro Ortiz received— 1. Clear votes 2. Doubtful votes 3. Protested votes “(b) That Pio Ancheta received— 1. Clear votes 2. Doubtful votes 3. Protested votes “(c) That Gabriel Tabora received— 1. Clear votes “(d) That Vicente Valpiedad received— 1. Clear votes
Said commissioners in their report stated that they had rejected 222 ballots
for various reasons given.
Upon the presentation of said report the respective parties agreed that the
same was correct and exact with reference to the number of ballots, “clear” and
“questioned,” found in the ballot boxes of the various municipalities. Both
parties, however, the protestant as well as the protestee, Mauro Ortiz, asked
permission to adduce additional proof with reference to the frauds and
irregularities alleged to have been committed in the municipality of Bacnotan.
Said permission was granted. Proof was adduced with reference to said alleged
frauds, and the cause was submitted to the court for decision.
On the 9th day of May, 1917, the Honorable Manuel Camus, in a very carefully
prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that Mauro Ortiz received 3,272.54 1/31
legal votes, and that Pio Ancheta had received 3,285.59 1/31 legal votes and
issued an order directed to the provincial board of canvassers to correct its
return in accordance with said conclusion. It will be noted from the decision of
the lower court that each candidate was given the number of votes which he had
been accorded in the report of the commissioners except in the municipality of
Bacnotan. In said municipality the commissioners gave to Mauro Ortiz 46 votes
and to Pio Ancheta 467 votes, while the Court of First Instance, after a careful
examination of the ballots, gave to Mauro Ortiz 80.54 16/31 votes and to Pio
Ancheta 465.59 1/31 votes. In other words, upon a reexamination of the ballots
found in the ballot box in said municipality, the lower court reached the above
result after dividing between the various candidates eleven disputed ballots. It
was by that means that the lower court reached the conclusion that the
candidates received a fraction of a vote. Said eleven votes will be discussed
later.
From that decision of the lower court the protestee, Mauro Ortiz, appealed
and made several assignments of error, many of which may be discussed
together.
The appellant contends that an error was committed by the lower court in not
being- present and presiding over the sessions of the commissioners during the
time they were examining the ballots and hearing proofs relating to the alleged
frauds and irregularities. The appellant, either personally or by his attorney,
was present during the sessions of the commissioners. He presented no objection
to the fact that the sessions of said commission were not held in the presence
of the court. He gave his consent to the method of conducting the investigation
by the commissioners. He entered no protest. Shall he be heard now to enter a
protest for the purpose of annulling the acts of the commissioners ? The
doctrine is so well established that it no longer needs the citation of
authorities to support it, that, generally, an objection which is not presented
in the lower court will not be heard for the first time on an appeal. The
appellant not only failed to present any objection in the court below, but
actually gave his consent to the method of conducting the examination by the
commissioners (pp. 2 to 5, stenographic notes.) And moreover, while it is not
denied that the commissioners are subject to the control and direction of the
court, their work would be of but little assistance to the court if they were
required to act in its presence and under its direct supervision. The principal
purpose in the appointment of commissioners is to save busy courts from the
necessity of the detailed work of counting ballots. That purpose would be
completely defeated if, notwithstanding the appointment of commissioners, the
court should be required personally to assist in the counting of the votes.
Considering the fact that the parties consented to the method of examining
the ballots by the commissioners in the court below without protest, and
considering especially the fact that they agreed expressly to the method adopted
by said commissioners, we are not now inclined to reverse or to modify the
conclusions of the lower court upon the first assignment of error. (Hontiveros
vs. Altavas, 24 Phil. Rep., 632.)
The second contention of the appellant is that the lower court committed an
error in accepting the report of the commissioners with reference to various
municipalities without hearing proofs relating to the frauds and irregularities
charged. In answer to that contention it is sufficient to say that the
appellant, as well as the appellee, admitted, when the report of the
commissioners was presented, that it was true and an exact reference to all of
the said municipalities in question, except that of Bacnotan. The proof adduced
in the court below by the respective parties was limited to the alleged frauds
and irregularities committed in the municipality of Bacnotan. Having thus
agreed, and having thus accepted the report of the commissioners, and having
failed to present any proof which in any way tended to affect the result reached
by said commissioners in all of said municipalities, except Bacnotan, we see no
reason now, the objection having been presented for the first time, for
modifying the conclusions of the lower court.
The next contention of the appellant is that the municipal board of
inspectors of the municipality of Bacnotan committed an error (a) in
permitting certain ignorant and incapacitated persons to be assisted by the
members of said board without first taking the oath required by law, and
(b) in permitting certain persons to vote who had not theretofore been
duly registered and qualified as voters.Whether or not said errors were
committed is a question of fact. Proof relating to said alleged errors was
adduced pro and con during the hearing before the lower court. While the proof
is in conflict, and while several of the witnesses contradicted themselves
frequently upon each of said questions, we are of the opinion that a fair
preponderance of the proof adduced shows that neither of said irregularities
were committed by the municipal board of inspectors.
In addition to what we have here stated we desire to make that part of the
decision of the lower court relating to these particular alleged errors a part
of this decision, without the necessity of repeating it here.
The protestee alleged and attempted to prove that ten or eleven persons voted
at the election in the municipality of Bacnotan who had not been theretofore
registered and qualified as voters. While the lower court reached the conclusion
that that allegation had not been proved, yet, nevertheless, out of the
abundance of caution, and without being able to determine for which particular
candidate said eleven, votes had been cast, it divided the said eleven votes
among the respective candidates in proportion to their total votes in said
municipality. By that method the lower court reached the conclusion that each of
the candidates in the municipality of Bacnotan received a fractional part of a
vote. The lower court refused to annul the result of the election even though
some persons had voted who were not qualified as voters. This conclusion, of
course, was reached after it had found that a preponderance of the evidence
shows that no such fact existed. But even though the eleven votes in question
had all been given to the protestee, still that would not be sufficient to
change the result.
After a careful examination of the record, and for the reasons above given,
as well as for the reasons given in the decision of the lower court, we are of
the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the lower court should be and is
hereby affirmed, with costs against the protestee and appellant Mauro Ortiz. So
ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Carson, Araullo, Street, Malcolm, and Avancena,
JJ., concur.