G.R. No. 30510. December 21, 1928
ABENCIO TORRES, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPE, SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND DEOGRACIAS MOLO, RESPONDENTS.
VILLA-REAL, J.:
Torres against the Court of First Instance of Capiz and Deogracias Molo, praying
that this court annul all the proceedings had, as well as orders and the
judgment rendered in election contest No. 2447 of the Court of First Instance of
Capiz, wherein Deogracias Molo is the protestant aiid Abencio Torres, the
protestee, on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction to try the motion
of protest filed in said contest, hear the evidence, and decide it, for the
reason that the facts alleged therein are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on
the court, inasmuch as the other candidates voted for the same office of
municipal vice-president at the general elections held in the municipality of
Makato, Capiz, have not been included as parties therein.
As we have before us all the evidence necessary to decide the
question of jurisdiction raised in the present proceeding by virtue of the
application and the documents accompanying it, there is no need to order the
transmission of the original record of the election contest to this court;
hence, with such evidence before us, we shall proceed to the solution of this
proceeding.
The following are the pertinent facts necessary for the
solution of the questions of procedural
law raised here:
On June 15,1928, the herein respondent Deogracias Molo filed
the following motion of protest:
“Comes now the above-named protestant, and to the court
respectfully represents and alleges:“I. That the protestant and the protestee are both of age,
residents, and duly qualified electors in election precinct No. 2 of the
municipality of Makato, Capiz, Philippine Islands, and both had full capacity to
vote and be voted for in the last elections of June 5, 1928.“II. That both the protestant and the protestee were candidates
for the office of municipal vice-president, with certificates duly presented and
registered, and as such were voted for, as well as the other candidates for the
same office at the general elections of June 5, 1928, held at Makato.“III. That according to the municipal board of canvassers, the
protestant received 314 votes, the protestee 318, one Alejandro Legaspi 274, and
one Baeelides Tabernilla 12, all for the office of municipal vice-president; in
pursuance whereof said board of canvassers proclaimed the protestee Abencio
Torres victorious and elected, having obtained a plurality of ballots lawfully
cast in his favor.“IV. That the protestant contests the election of the protestee
as such municipal vice-president for the next triennium of 1928 to 1931, on the
following grounds:“(a) Because in the aforementioned precinct No. 2, there were
29 ballots in the name of Alejandro Legaspi for the office of vice-president
which were awarded to Abencio Torres; (b) because 8 ballots in the name of the
protestant Deogracias Molo were also awarded to said Abencio Torres, the
protestee; (c) and because 6 other ballots in the name of Baselides Tabernilla
were also awarded to the said Abencio Torres.“V. That, such fraudulent proceedings or acts committed in
election precinct No. 2, consisted in the chairman of the election, board
reading one name for another, with the knowledge and consent of its two members,
thus defrauding the will of the electors and changing the result of the
election, which should have been as follows: For the office of vice-president:
Deogracias Molo, the protestant, with 322 votes: Abencio Torres, the protestee,
with 275 votes; Alejandro Legaspi with 303 votes; and Baselides Tabernilla with
18 votes.“Wherefore, the protestant prays the court: (1) That a subpoena
duces tecum be issued to the municipal treasurer of Makato, commanding him to
appear, bring, and exhibit to the court, the ballot boxes and all the papers or
documents of the election pertaining to precinct No. 2 of said municipality; (2)
that a subpoena duces tecum be issued to the municipal secretary commanding him
to appear, bring, and exhibit to the court, all the papers and returns
concerning the canvass made by the municipal council on June 12, 1928; (3) that
the opening of said ballot boxes of precint No. 2, be ordered, and all the
ballots contained therein be revised and recounted before the said court; (4)
that in accordance with such recount and revision, the candidate who thus
obtained the greatest number of votes be proclaimed elected as municipal
vice-president; (5) that should it result that the protestee loses this
contest by his fraudulent election, he be sentenced to pay the costs of this
instance and all the damages suffered by the protestant, if the latter is
elected and so proclaimed by the court, to the office of municipal
vice-president; and (6) that the protestant be granted such further remedy as
in law may be proper.“Makato, Capiz, 15 of June, 1928.
(Sgd.) “DEOGRACIAS MOLO
“Protestant.”
On June 28, 1928, the protestee Abencio Torres filed the
following motion for dismissal:
“The undersigned Abencio Torres, protestee in the aboveentitled
proceeding, to the honorable court shows:“That he hereby enters a special
appearance to impugn the aforementioned proceeding and therefore prays for the
dismissal thereof on the following grounds:
“GROUNDS
“1. That this court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
herein protestee and, consequently, no power to try and decide this case, other
than to dismiss it, and“2. That in the motion of protest filed by Deogracias Molo, the
other candidates to the same office of municipal vice-president, Messrs.
Alejandro Legaspi and Basilides Tabernilla, who respectively obtained votes in
the last elections in the municipality of Makato, Capiz do not appear either as
protestants or as protestees.“Wherefore, the undersigned prays the honorable court to issue
an order dismissing the motion of protest of the protestant Deogracias Molo with
costs against the latter.“Makato for Ibajay, Capiz, June 28, 1928.
(Sgd.) “ABENCIO TORRES
“NOTE.—Copy of this motion was sent by registered mail to the
protestant Deogracias Molo who lives in Tangalan, municipality of Makato, Capiz,
as evidenced by the attached post-office receipt.”
On July 14, 1928, the other registered candidates voted for the
office of vice-president,
Alejandro Legaspi and Basilides Tabernilla, entered
a voluntary appearance.
On July 21, 1928, the protestant Deogracias Molo filed an
amended protest including all the candidates voted for the office of municipal
vice-president as protestees.
On August 4, 1928, after having heard the parties, the
respondent court denied the motion for dismissal.
Later on the court rendered judgment in favor of the protestant
and against the protestee.
In the case of Ferrer vs. Gutierrez David and Lucot (43 Phil.,
795), cited by this court in recent decisions rendered in the election contests
of Saldana vs. Consunji (G. R. No. 30173 [1928])[1] and Yumul vs. Palma (G. R. No.
30174 [1928] )[2] this court laid down the doctrine that in order that the court
may acquire jurisdiction to try an election contest, it is sufficient to allege
in the motion of protest the essential facts pointed out by the law for
conferring jurisdiction over the contest, among which are the following: (a)
that the protestant has duly registered his candidacy and has received votes at
the election (Tengco vs. Jocson, 43 Phil., 715); (b) that the protestee has been
proclaimed elected in said election (Manalo vs. Sevilla, 24 Phil., 609); and (c)
that the motion of protest must be presented within two weeks after the
proclamation (Navarro vs. Veloso, 23 Phil., 625; Manalo vs. Sevilla, supra;
Hontiveros vs. Altavas, 39 Phil., 226).
It is not contended in the election contest now before us that
any of these essential facts for conferring jurisdiction has not been alleged,
but only the fact that the other registered candidates voted for the office of
municipal vice-president were not included as protestees.
It is true that in order that a court may decide a case and
that its decision become effective, it is necessary that it have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the controversy and over the parties litigant.
Jurisdiction over the person of the protestant is acquired by the presentation
of the protest, and jurisdiction over the person or persons of the protestee or
protestees, is acquired by the summons.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy is
acquired by the court through the presentation of the motion of protest
alleging the essential facts for conferring jurisdiction.
While it is true that section 481 of the Election Law as lastly
amended by Act No. 3387, provides that proceedings for the judicial contest of
an election shall be by virtue of a protest with summons, and that unless the
name of the protestee or protestees appear in the motion of protest they
cannot be summoned, yet the omission of said names does not prevent the court
from acquiring jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy, and over
the party protestant. The mere act of putting in the name or names of the party
or parties protested against is not sufficient for the court to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. It is necessary that they be summoned upon the
protest in the form provided by law in order that the judgment to be rendered
may affect them.
This same section 481 provides furthermore, that “the candidate
whose election is contested and all other registered candidates voted for may
reply thereto within fifteen days after the summons, or if they have appeared
without being summoned, within fifteen days from the date of their appearance,
but in all cases before the beginning of the hearing of the case in court.” This
same provision of law, in stating “the candidate whose election is contested and
all other registered candidates voted for” seems to indicate that it is not
necessary that all the registered candidates voted for be made parties
protestees, but it is sufficient that their names appear in the protest so that
the sheriff may summon them all.
Now then; it not only happens that the names of the other
candidates, Alejandro Legaspi and Basilides Tabernilla, appear in the motion of
protest, but that, moreover, the latter appear voluntarily, thus conferring
jurisdiction on the court over their persons.
In conclusion, then, it appears that since the motion of
protest alleged all the essential facts for conferring jurisdiction on the court
and included the names of the parties, protestant and protestee, which latter
was summoned, and of the other registered candidates voted for, who appeared of
their own free will, the Court of First Instance of Capiz acquired jurisdiction
to try and decide the case.
By virtue whereof, and not finding any merit in the present
proceeding the same is denied and dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ.,
concur.
[1] Page 433, ante.
[2] Page 412, ante.