REINERIO TICAO, ARTURO DICEN, ROMEO MABAQUIAO, CECILIO HECHANOVA, ANTONIO JAVIER, MIGUEL LEDESMA, FRANCISCO GARCANERA, HECTOR TREÑAS, SULPICIO PALMA, DOMINADOR SUSTENTO AND SEVE…

In the election held on November 10, 1959, petitioner Reinerio Ticao was a
candidate for the position of Vice-Mayor of the City of Iloilo, while his
co-petitioners were candidates for the office of councilor of the same city. On
the other hand, respondent Nacianceno Rico was also a candidate for the position
of Vice-Mayor of, the same city, while his co-respondents—except the respondent
judge—were candidates for the office of councilor.

On December 12, 1959, the city board of canvassers proclaimed Ticao as
Vice-Mayor elect, and his co-petitioners as councilors elect.

On the 24th of the same month and year, respondents, except the respondent
judge—filed an election protest against petitioners. As grounds of protest, they
alleged, inter alia, the following:

“5. The City of Iloilo is composed of 265 election, precincts,
in which according: to the Iloilo City Board of Canvassers, the
parties-litigants received the votes reflected in the list appended hereto as
Annex ‘A’ and made part hereof by reference;

6. The protestants impugn the elections in all the aforesaid 265
precincts as not free, orderly, nor honest but were characterized by gross
and rampant frauds, terrorism, coercion, corrupt practices, and other election
irregularities as herein below specified, so that it was a farcical election,
the electors haying been prevented from expressing their free choice;

* * * * * * *

9. On election day, to assure a Board of Election Inspectors sympathetic to,
if not cooperative with the protestees in Precinct. Nos. 1-A, 2, 2-A, 3, 4, 6,
6, 6-A, 7, 8, 10, 10-A, 11, 15, 15-A, 16, 17, 19, 19-A, 22, 22-A, 23, 23-A, 24,
25, 26, 29, 30-A, 30-C, 31-A, 32, 32-A, 33, 33-A, 34, 34-A, 37, 38, 38-A, 38-B,
40, 41, 42, 42-A, 42-B, 67, 67-A, 68, 68-A, 69, 69-A, 72, 72-A, 73, 73-A, 74,
74-A, 75, 76, 77, 78, 78-A, 79, 79-A, 80, 81, 82, 84, 84-B, 84-C, 84-D, 85, 86,
86-A, 88, 89, 89-A, 90, 90-A, 92, 93, 93-A, 93-B, 95, 96, 96-A, 97, 102, 102-A,
105-A, 106, 106-A, 107, 107-A, 110, 110-B, 110-C, 111, 111-A, 112, 114, 114-A,
114-B, 114-C, 115, 116, 117, 118-A, 120-A, 125-A, 127-A, 129, 129-A, 131, 131-A,
132, 132-A, 135, 136, 136-A, 137, and 137-A, the regular Liberal Parly
Inspectors were anomalously and illegally changed with followers and supporters,
of the protestees, thru dubious and questionable manipulations of the protestees
and/or their leaders;” (p. 3 of the Protest, Annex “B” of the Petition; italics
supplied)

Answering the Protest, petitioners in turn, made, among others, the following
averments.

“3. * * that the election of 10 November 1959 in the entire City of Iloilo
was held and conducted in the cleanest most peaceful and honest manner, in
pursuance and in full implementation of all democratic processes, and that the
results thereof were indicative of the truest expression of popular will in the
City of Iloilo which gave an unprecedented plurality of votes to all the
protestees herein;” (Par. 3, p. 2 of Annex “A” of the Petition)

“2. * * that the elections held in the City of Iloilo on November 10, 1959,
was conducted in the most peaceful and orderly manner, and its results reflected
the true and clear will of the electorate of the City of Iloilo; *” (Par. 2, p.
1, of Annex “A-1” of the Petition)

“2. * * that the elections held in the City of Iloilo on November 10, 1959,
was conducted in the most peaceful and orderly manner, and its results reflected
the true and clear will of the electorate of the City of Iloilo; * *” (Par. 2,
p. 1 of Annex “A-2” of the Petition)

“II.

“* * that the elections held last November 10, 1959 were free, orderly and
honest, protestee herein, together with his co-protestees having endeavored that
the questioned election be without any taint of fraud, terrorism, coercion,
and/or corrupt practices, having fully and heartily agreed and supported the
petition of Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon that Iloilo City be placed under the control of
the Commission on Elections to insure the city electorate a free and untramelled
expression of their right to vote;” (Par. II, p. 1 of Annex “A-3” of the
Petition)

“* * that the election in all of the 265 precincts of the City of
Iloilo, was free, orderly, honest, regular and depicted the true will of the
electorate, and that, there never was any threat or terrorism employed allegedly
by the Protestee or any of his group under the Ganzon-Ticao line-up, as so
emphatically alleged by the Protestants;” (Par. 2, p. 2 of Annex “A-4” of the
Petition; Italics supplied.)

“* * that the election held in all the 265 precincts of the City of
Iloilo, was not a farcical election, but was the free and untram-meled
expression of the people’s choice, devoid of frauds, threats, terrorisms,
coercions and other illegal and corrupt election practices and irregularities
which the protestants would have this Honorable Court to believe that the
protestee or his co-protestees, has or have committed and employed; * * ” (Par.
2, p. 1 of Annex “A-5” of the Petition; Italics supplied)

“* * that the last elections in Iloilo City has been the most orderly,
peaceful, clean, and honest, depicting the true will of the city electorates;”
(Par. 4, p. 2 of Annex “A-6” of the Petition)

“* * that if ever there were such frauds, terrorism, coercion, corrupt
practices, and other election irregularities committed during the last
elections, the protestants and their leaders and supporters were the ones who
tried, attempted, and/or perpetrated the same, but they were not able to
frustrate the electors of the City of Iloilo from expressing their choice for
protestees;” (Par. 3, p. 1 of Annex “A-7” of the Petition)

“* * that protestants indiscriminately protested against each
and all the duly elected officials in the City of Iloilo, all of whom belonged
to the same ticket, and indiscriminately in all the electoral precincts in
the City of Iloilo.” (Par. 9, p. 4 of Annex “A-7” of the Petition; Italics
supplied)

“* * that the election in all the 265 precincts in the City of
Iloilo was free orderly, honest and regular, and that there was no threat or
terrorism employed by the protestee and his companions under the Ganzon-Ticao
ticket as alleged by the Protestants, * *” (Par. 2, p. 2 of Annex “A-8” of the
Petition; Italics supplied).

“* * that the elections held last November 10, 1959 which is the subject of
the protest in the above-entitled case, was most orderly, peaceful, clean,
honest, free and untramelled, * *” (Par. 2, p. 1 of Annex “A-9” of the
Petition)

“* * that the elections held in the City of Iloilo on November 10, 1959,
concerning the herein protestee is honest, free and clean, truly and genuinely
expressive of the true mandate and popular choice of the electors of the City of
Iloilo, Philippines, done in an orderly and peaceful manner;” (Par. 2, p. 1 of
Annex “A-10” of the Petition). Italics supplied.

In the course of the hearing held on December 14, 1960, the
protestants—referred to hereafter as respondents—tried to introduce evidence
regarding the affiliation of the inspectors of several precincts not included
among those specifically enumerated in paragraph 9 of the Protest reproduced
above. The protestees (petitioners herein) objected, but upon verbal motion of
respondents, the respondent judge allowed them to amend paragraph 9 of their
Protest by adding fourteen other precincts to those enumerated therein.
Petitioners’ motion for the reconsideration of said order was denied by the
respondent judge. Thereupon, they filed the present original petition for
certiorari claiming that, in allowing the amendment already referred to, His
Honor, acted without jurisdiction because at that time, the period for the
filing of protest and the introduction of substantial amendments had already
elapsed.

The issue in this case, therefore, is whether the amendment allowed by the
respondent judge was substantial in character and constituted an additional
ground of protest.

It is elementary in matters of election protests that the corresponding
Protest should be filed within the period provided by law for that purpose
which, as far as the present case is concerned, is two weeks after the date of
proclamation. As a corollary, it has been consistently iieid that;substantial
amendments to the Protest may be allowed only within the same period (Valenzuela
vs. Carlos et al., 42 Phil. 428; Orencia vs. Araneta, 47 Phil. 830). Stated
otherwise, the rule in an election protest is that the protestant or counter
protestant must stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in hjs original or
amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for tine
filing of protest or counter protest.

In determining whether the amendment now complained of violates the foregoing
rule, it is important to bear in mind that the Protest filed by respondents
clearly impugned or assailed the election held in all the 265
precincts of the City of Iloilo, as not free, orderly, nor honest, and as
characterized by gross and rampant frauds, terrorism, coercion, corrupt
practices, and other election irregularities, this resulting in the electors
having been prevented from expressing their free choice (paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the Protest). Petitioners, for their part, as protestees, joined issue with the
adverse party by alleging in their answer that the election held on November 10,
1959, in the entire city of Iloilo was held in the cleanest, most peaceful and
honest manner, etc., its result reflecting the true and clear will of the
electorate of said city; that the election in all of the 265 precincts of the
city of Iloilo was free, orderly, etc., and was not a farcical election; that
protestants indiscriminately protested the result “in all the electoral
precincts in the city of Iloiio” in spite of the fact that the election in all
the 265 precincts of said city was free, orderly, honest, etc.

The foregoing shows beyond question that the regularity of the election held
in all the 265 precincts of the city of Iloiio was squarely in issue. Such being
the case, it can not be correctly said that the mere addition of 14 other
precincts to those enumerated in paragraph 9 of the original Protest—where
respondents had alleged that “the regular Liberal Party Inspectors were
anomalously and illegally changed with followers and supporters of the
protestees, through dubious and questionable manipulations of the protestees
and/or their leaders” constitutes a substantial amendment and changes the ground
or grounds of protest alleged by respondents in their original pleading. The
addition would seem to be merely in the nature of a bill of particulars in
connection with the issue properly raised in the original Protest, namely, the
regularity of the election held in all the 265 precincts of the city of Iloilo.
In other words, as petitioners knew from the very beginning that the regularity
of the election, in all the 265 precincts was in issue, the mere addition of 14
precincts to those originally enumerated in paragraph 9 of the Protest did not
compel them to meet a new issue.

In Gallares vs. Casenas, 48 Phil. 362, we held that protestant in said case
should have been allowed to clarify certain allegations made in his original
Protest. It seems clear, in accordance with this ruling, that where an issue had
been actually pleaded in the previous pleading of a party, but its statement was
not sufficiently clear, or lack of specifications made it indefinite or
insufficient, an amendment may be allowed.

Again in Cecilio vs. Tomacruz, 62 Phil. 689, it appears that in the original
counter protest, the protestee alleged that in certain specified precincts 20
were not counted in his favor. Later, and after the lapse of the statutory
period for the filing of protest, said protestee sought to amend his pleading by
stating that in the aforesaid precincts, not 20 but 36 votes were not counted in
his favor. He was allowed to make the corresponding amendment.

From the facts and circumstances surrounding the cases above-cited, it is
manifest that the amendments were allowed because, in point of fact, they did
not change the grounds of protest alleged in previous pleadings timely filed,
and the opposing parties were not thereby forced to face new issues.

In view of all the foregoing, we hold that the respondent judge had
jurisdiction to allow the amendment complained of and, that, in allowing it, he
did not commit any grave abuse of discretion.

Wherefore, the writ of certiorari sought in the petition under consideration
is denied, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is
dissolved. With costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.
B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.