RAMON C. ROSALES, ET AL., PROTESTANTS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MATEO V. TUPAZ, ET AL., PROTESTEES AND APPELLEES.

In the general elections held on November 8, 1955, Mateo V. Tupaz, Filemon
Durano, Godiardo Guillen, Teofilo H. Sanchez and Gabriel R. Banaag were on
November 25, 1955, proclaimed by the City Board of Canvassers elected councilors
of the City of Butuan. On December 6, 1955, Ramon Rosales and others filed their
election protest, and on December 10, 1955, the protestees moved for the
dismissal of the protest on the ground of lack of cause of action. The protest
having been dismissed, the protestants filed on April 24, 1956 a motion for
reconsideration and on April 25, 1956, an amended election protest. As the
motion for reconsideration was denied and the amended election protest was not
admitted for having been filed out of time, the protestants have appealed.

The lower court dismissed the original protest on the ground that it states
no allegation that the frauds, errors, irregularities and violation of election
law mentioned therein would in any way alter the result of the election in favor
of the protestees.” This is erroneous, considering the allegations of
sub-paragraph (i) of the protest, in relation to those contained in
sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), and (h) of paragraph 4. As the last part of
sub-paragraph (i) avers “which causes directly affected the election results in
all precincts in the City of Butuan in favor of the protestees and against the
protestants”, a reasonable construction would be that the word “causes” refers
to the irregularities, frauds, errors, and violations of the Election Law
enumerated in the preceding sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) and in the first
part of sub-paragraph (i). In other words, were it not for the existence of
those “causes” the results of the election would have been different, and the
protestants should have won and the protestees would have lost.

Accordingly, the amended protest filed by the appellants should not have been
dismissed. No new grounds were inserted therein, the amendments consisting
merely of clarifications of the allegations of the original protest. There was
as yet no trial, and it was filed within a reasonable period.

Wherefore, the appealed order of dismissal is hereby set aside and the lower
court is ordered to give due course to the protest. So ordered.

Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and
Endencia, JJ., concur.