ALEJANDRO REYES, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. ANATALIO REYES, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissing
the protest filed by Alejandro Reyes against the election of Anatalio Reyes as
Municipal Mayor of Magallanes, Cavite.

In the election of November 14, 1967 appellant and appellee were
candidates for the office of Municipal Mayor of the abovementioned
municipality.

On November 23, 1967 appellant filed a petition for judicial
recount, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, in the Court of First
Instance of Cavite, alleging that there were discrepancies in certain election
returns.  On November 27 of the same year
the Court issued an order restraining the proclamation of the winning
candidates in the meantime.  It turned
out, however, that on the strength of a certificate of canvass dated November
21, 1967, Anatalio Reyes was proclaimed Mayor-elect on December 2 of the same
year.  Claiming that the certi­ficate of
canvass just mentioned was falsified, appel­lant filed a petition with the
Commission on Elections on December 2, 1967 praying for the nullification of
appellee’s proclamation.

On December 4, 1967, however, a petition was filed by appellant
against appellee in the Court of First Instance of Cavite protesting the
latter’s election.  Unaware of the filing
of said petition, the Commission on Elections on December 6 of the same year
nullified the proclamation of appellee, on the ground that his proclamation was
irregular because it was made despite the presence of alterations and
discrepancies in the election returns which materially affected the result of
the election.

On December 11, 1967 appellee and the Municipals Board of
Canvassers of Magallanes, Cavite, filed a motion for the reconsideration of the
order of the Commission annulling the former’s proclamation and that of other
municipal officials of the municipality of Magallanes, relying in support
thereof, inter alia, upon the claim that the Commission had no jurisdiction
over the case before it because appellant had already filed an election protest
in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. 
Resolving said motion for reconsideration, the Commission in its
resolution of December 29, 1967 stated that “in view of the aforesaid
circumstance that there is now pending an election protest with the Court of
First Instance involving the same election’ as in the case with the Commission,
We are constrained to reconsider the Commission’s resolution of December 6,
1967 annulling the proclamation of Anatalio Reyes as Mayor-elect of Magallanes,
Cavite and leave the disposition of all questions involved in said election
with the Court of First Instance in the election protest now pending with said
Court”.  As a result, the Commission
reinstated the proclamation of appellee. 
Appellant elevated the case to
Us by certiorari, but his petition was dismissed upon the ground that the
Commission on Elections’ resolution of December 29, 1967 reconsidering its
resolution of December 6 of the same year, far from having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion, was precisely in accordance with the applicable and
controlling legal principle.

It appears that, subsequently, in the petition filed by appellant
protesting the election of appellee – which was docketed in the Court of First
Instance of Cavite as Election Case No. TG-104 – the latter filed a motion to
dismiss the same upon the ground firstly, of improper service of summons, and
secondly, upon the further ground that the docket fees were paid more than two
weeks after the date of the proclamation of the protestee.  The lower court overruled the first ground
but sustained the second because it found that appellant paid the docket fees
only on February 9, 1968, admittedly after the expiration of the period for the
filing of an election protest against appellee who, as stated here­tofore, was
proclaimed on November 21, 1967.

Upon the facts setforth above, We are of the opinion and so hold
that the order of dismissal of the protest filed by appellant against
appellee’s election must be set aside upon the ground that the latter is now
barred from claiming that the election protest filed against him was not a valid and timely filed election pro­test.  He stated in his motion for reconsideration
filed with the Commission on Elections that appellant – peti­tioner in the case
before that body – had already filed in the Court of First Instance of Cavite
an election pro­test, and contended that, in view thereof, said Commission no
longer had jurisdiction to consider the matter brought to it by appellant.  Accepting this as true, the Commission felt
constrained to reverse itself, as in fact it reversed itself, by setting aside its
previous order annulling appellee’s proclamation.  It is
clear to Us that had the Commission known or had it been informed that
the election protest had not been filed in accordance with law, as appellee
subsequently contended in the Court of First Instance and now contends in this
appeal, the Commission would not have reconsidered its first resolution of
December 6, 1967.  Neither would this
Court have dismissed the peti­tion for certiorari filed by appellant (G.R.
L-28476) had the questioned resolution of the Commission shown that ap­pellee’s
allegation regarding the filing of a valid election protest was not true.  To allow appellee’s claim to prevail now
would be utterly unfair not only to appellant who would thus be deprived of his
right to contest the election of appellee after losing his opportunity to have
the latter’s proclamation annulled by the Commission, but also unfair to the
Commission on Elections and to this Court who had been led to act on the
strength of appellee’s allegation that appellant had already filed an election
protest in the Court of First Instance of Cavite.  For this reason, he can not now be allowed to
claim that said election pro­test is worthless
because of the late payment of the cor­responding docket fees.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the order of dismissal
appealed from is hereby set aside and the record of this case is remanded below
for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, J., did not take part.