MARIANO BELLO, PETITIONER, VS. HERMOGENES REYES, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, AND BERNARDO DACUYCUY, RESPONDENTS.

This is an original action in the Supreme Court, the object of which
is to compel the respondent judge, by mandamus, to reinstate a certain
election contest and to proceed with the trial thereof.

The case has been submitted upon the merits. Both parties have
united with the record a certified copy of the proceedings had in the
court below. The facts are these:

At the general election held on June 6, 1916, Mariano Bello and
Bernardo Dacuycuy were opposing candidates for the office of president
of the municipality of Cagayan, Province of Isabela. Dacuycuy was
declared elected by the municipal board of canvassers. Bello instituted
proceedings in due time contesting the election. The motion of contest
was prepared and filed by Miguel Binag, a duly licensed and practicing
attorney, at the request and upon authority of the contestant. He was
not, however, authorized to represent the contestant in court after the
filing of the motion.

It has been definitely settled in this jurisdiction that a motion of
contest, signed by an attorney, is a compliance with the statute and
confers jurisdiction upon the court of the subject-matter, provided the
same is filed within the time required by law and sets forth the
necessary jurisdictional facts. (De Castro vs. Salas and Santiago, 34
Phil. Rep., 818.)

The mere fact that Miguel Binag was only employed and authorized to
prepare, sign, and file the motion of contest makes no difference in so
far as the question under consideration is concerned. Mandamus is the
proper remedy when the court dismisses a contest upon an erroneous
interpretation of the law.

It is therefore ordered that a writ of mandamus be issued directing
the respondent judge to reinstate the election contest and to; proceed
with trial of the same. Judgment will be entered accordingly, with costs
against the respondent, Bernardo Dacuycuy. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

---

MORELAND, J., concurring and dissenting:

I agree to the result in this case under the authority of the De
Castro case. I cannot, however, agree that the following from the
opinion of the court is a correct statement of the law of mandamus:

“Mandamus is the proper remedy when the court dismisses a contest upon an erroneous interpretation of the law.”