HOSPICIO A. PACAL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE F. RAMOS, JUDGE OF THE FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, AND AGATON N. COSUCO, RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Agaton N. Cosuco was proclaimed mayor-elect of Mamburao, Mindoro
in the elections of November 11, 1947, with 539 votes ‘against 524 votes
received by Hospicio A. Pacal.

In a motion of protest, dated November 20, 1947, Pacal contested Cosuco’s
election upon two sets of grounds: 1. That protestee’is ineligible because
(a) he is not a Filipino citizen, (b) he has not filed his
certificate of Candidacy within the time prescribed by law, and (c) he
spent for his campaign more than the total amount of the emoluments for one year
attached to the office of mayor of Mamburao, and 2. That errors, irregularities,
illegalities and frauds had been committed in precinct Nos. 3, 4 and 5 without
which protestant would have won with a plurality not less than 100 votes. Among
other remedies, protestant prayed that protestee be declared disqualified to
hold the office of mayor or that his election be annulled and, in any case, that
protestant be declared elected to the office.

In his answer, dated December 2, 1947, protestee, among others, made the
allegation that the set of grounds for the protest about alleged ineligibility
of the contestee should be stricken out from the protest upon the authority of
section 173 of the Election Code, and averred facts belying the three grounds of
ineligibility. At the same time, contestee denied all protestant’s allegations
about election irregularities and frauds in precinct Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and
countered with the allegation that if any irregularity, fraud or anomaly was
made in said precincts, the same was committed by and for the contestant and, as
a matter of fact, pointed to specific frauds, irregularities and errors which,
if, proved, would give him a greater majority.

On January 21, 1948, contestee filed agnation to dismiss the case upon the
theory that the action taken by protestant, by impugning protestee’s
eligibility, is in the nature of a quo warranto proceedings which,
having been started on November 24, 1947, ten days after contestee’s
proclamation which took place on November 14, violates the provision of section
173 of the Election Code, according to which the petition for quo
warranto should be filed within one week after the proclamation. The
protestee added that if the proceedings can be considered as a joint quo
warranto and election contest, the court’s jurisdiction cannot be exercised
jointly on both proceedings.

Protestant answered the motion to dismiss, alleging that the proceedings he
initiated is in the nature of an election contest with separate and alternate
grounds. At the same time, considering that May 24, 1948, is the deadline for
the decision of the case, protestant, acceding to protestee’ s suggestion made
in his answer, moved that his allegations about protestee’s ineligibility be
ordered stricken out, excepting the one regarding expenses in the election.

On April 19, 1948, respondent judge ordered the dismissal of the case finding
that the protest “contains sufficient allegations constituting an action for an
election contest” and, at the same time, “substantially all the allegations
necessary to sustain an action for quo warranto,” and that, under the
rule laid down in Rama vs. Yonzon, 52 Phil., 446, 447, the lover court
cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the two remedies jointly and in the same
proceedings, adding that “since the petition cannot now be amended in order
either to separate the two remedies erroneously merged or eliminate one of them,
because such an amendment would be out of time, there remains no alternative but
to dismiss the case.”

Respondent judge erred in dismissing the protest. The rounds for quo
warranto are separable from the grounds for election irregularities alleged
in the protest. In fact, they are alleged in separate paragraphs. There is no
provision of law, authority, or principle of justice against their separation.
Contestee himself suggested in his answer that the grounds for quo
warranto should be “stricken out from the protest,” and protestant followed
the suggestion by moving for the elimination of the disputed allegations, There
is no valid reason why respondent judge could not accede to the course of action
proposed by both parties. When two independent actions are improperly joined in
one proceeding, it is the duty of the court to order their separation, so that
each one may proceed independently of the other. If one of them should be
dismissed on jurisdictional or other legal ground, its dismissal should not
affect the other action if there is no legal ground to dismiss it. Each action
should be dealt with according to its own merits.

As prayed for, the order of April. 19, 1948, is set aside and respondent
judge is ordered to proceed without delay to try and decide on the Merits of the
election protest filed by petitioner Hospicio A. Pacal versus. Agaton N. Cosuco
without costs. By its urgent nature, this decision shall executory immediately
upon its promulgation.

Parás, Actg. C.J., Feria, and Tuason,
JJ., concur.