JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an original petition in this court for a writ of mandamus to
compel the respondent judge to reinstate an election protest over the
offices of vice-president and six councillors of the municipality of
Lemery, Batangas, and to proceed to try the same on its merits. The
respondents, having been required to show cause in usual course, have
answered, and the cause is now before us upon the issue thus presented.

It appears that after the general election in June of the current year,
the respondents herein, except Judge Filamor, were declared elected
respectively to the offices of president, vice-president and ten
councillors in the municipality of Lemery, Batangas. Within due time
thereafter a contest was instituted over said offices by Ruperto
Venturanza, as contestant for the office of president, Jeremias
Ynumerable, as contestant for the office of vice-president, and the six
other petitioners herein as contestants for the office of councillor.
In this proceeding the persons elected to said offices were named as
contestees. In due time thereafter a bond was given for the expenses
and costs in the amount of P3,500, as fixed by the respondent judge.
Said bond was expressed in the following terms:

“A
contest having been presented by Ruperto Venturanza, Jeremias
Ynumerable, Julian Malabanan, Gregorio Marquinez, Ildefonso Marasigan,
Dalmacio Mortel, Marcelo Villamin and Emiliano de la Luna against the
election of Vicente Makabuhay, Rufino Pisigan, Zacarias Marasigan,
Urbano Lota, Vicente Montenegro, Cornelio Morales, Marcos Catibog, Juan
Mayuga, Jose Baldoza, Leoncio Noble, Valentin Mulintapang and Aniceto
Makabuhay, for the offices of municipal president, vice-president and
councillors of the municipality of Lemery, Province of Batangas, and a
bond having been fixed by the court in the amount of three thousand and
five hundred pesos (P3,500), Philippine currency, for the admission of
said contest:

“Now, therefore, we, Ruperto Venturanza, as
principal obligor, and Fulgencio Reyes, Segundo Maranan, Juan Diomampo
and Ramon Atienza, all of the municipality of Lemery, Province of
Batangas, jointly and severally hereby obligate ourselves to pay the
expenses and other incidental costs that may be incurred on account of
said contest up to the amount of three thousand and five hundred pesos
(P3,500).”

This bond was signed by Ruperto
Venturanza, as principal, and by the four mentioned therein as
bondsmen. It will be noted that the names of none of the contestants,
except Ruperto Venturanza, appears signed as principal obligors
therein. Nevertheless the bond was approved by the court; and after an
appropriate order had been made for the prosecution of the contest, the
cause proceeded with the usual incidents, not omitting a motion of
counterprotest instituted in due form by the contestees.

After a committee had been appointed for the review of the ballots, the
boxes were opened and votes counted, with the result, so the petition
alleges, that the petitioner Ynumerable appeared to have been elected
to the office claimed by him as probably also others of the contestants
to the office of councillors. The protest being thus brought to the
stage where it was ready for final determination by the court, the
contestees raised a question before the court as to the sufficiency of
the bond as regards Ynumerable and the contestants for the office of
councillor. Upon this point it was urged that no bond had ever been
given by said contestants and that therefore the court lacked the
jurisdiction to proceed with the contest as regards to them.

In an order of October 7, 1925, his Honor, the respondent judge,
acceded to this contention and dismissed the protest with respect to
Ynumerable and the six contestants for the office of councillor.
Against this action of the court, the contestants affected by the order
interposed a motion for reconsideration, and asked leave of the court
to permit said contestants to file an amended bond, which they offered
to do. Both these petitions being denied, relief was sought in the
present proceeding for a writ of mandamus.

We are of the
opinion that his Honor was in error, both as to the supposed
insufficiency of the bond and as to the effect of the supposed
irregularity on the contest. It is established doctrine in this court
that the giving of the bond in an election protest is not
jurisdictional; and, furthermore, that where an insufficient bond is
given, the contestant has a right to submit a sufficient bond within a
reasonable time, to be fixed by the court, before the contest can be
dismissed. (Lucero vs. De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852.) In the bond
before us the preamble recites that a contest had been instituted by
the parties-contestant, naming them; and it will be noted that this was
a joint contest, consisting of a single proceeding against the
officers-elect named as contestees. Though all of the contestants were
not named as principal obligors, it must be considered that this bond
was submitted in behalf of all of them and that it inured to their
benefit. It is undeniable that the principal and bondsmen named in this
bond would be liable thereunder for all of the lawful expenses and
costs that might be taxed under section 482 of the Election Law, as
amended by section 28 of Act No. 3210. The purpose of the law is to
secure the obligation to pay the lawful expenses and costs, and this
being secured, the purpose of the law is accomplished.

As
for the contestants who are not named as principals in the bond, they
are of course liable under the express provision of law, without the
necessity of any bond, and there is nothing in the suggestion that the
omission of the names of certain of the contestants relieves them from
legal liability. Neither can the bond be declared ineffective because
no persons are specifically named therein as obligees. The law intends
that the successful party who has paid expenses and costs shall have a
right to collect them, and the bond is a valid obligation in favor of
such successful party, to be determined by the issue of the contest.
There is therefore no necessity for a new bond so long as the obligors
named in this bond remain solvent for the amount named.

It
follows that the writ of mandamus must be issued as prayed, requiring
the respondent judge to proceed with the determination of the contest
as regards the petitioners herein, regardless of his order of October
7, 1925, and enter judgment therein on the merits according to law. The
costs will be paid by the respondents who are contestees.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.