PEDRO V. MANZA ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

GODDARD, J.:

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition in
which it is prayed:

“Por tanto, al Honorable Tribunal respetuosamente
pide que, previos los tramites correspondientes, declare que el Juez
recurrido no adquirio ni tiene jurisdiction para conocer de dicha
protesta excepto para sobreseerla; y expida un mandamiento de inhibition
para que se abstenga de continuar conociendo de la misma—con las costas
a los recurridos.”

Within the time fixed by law a motion of protest was
filed in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas in which the election
to the offices of municipal president and municipal councilors of the
municipality of Lopez, Province of Tayabas, was contested. This protest
was signed and sworn to by Emilio A. Siazon, a candidate for the office
of municipal president, and clearly shows upon its face that its object
was to contest the election of June 5, 1934, for all of the
above-mentioned offices. The first paragraph of that motion reads in
part as follows: “Comparecen los recurrentes, y como motivo de action,
Emilio Siazon contra los recurridos Tomas V. Florido y Perfecto Reyes, y
los demas recurrentes contra los recurridos * * *, respetuosamente
alegan:” The first allegation in the motion commences as follows: “Que
los recurrentes son mayores de edad, etc.” and further alleges that
“Emilio Siazon siendo candidato registrado y votado para el cargo de
Presidente Municipal de L6pez, Tayabas, y siendo los demas recurrentes
candidates registrados y votados para el cargo de Concejal, del
mencionado municipio * * *.”

In view of the fact that this motion of protest was
signed by Emilio A. Siazon and not signed by any of the other
contestants, a motion was presented asking that the protest be dismissed
as to the offices of municipal councilors. After that motion was filed
the persons included therein as contestants for the offices of municipal
councilors filed an affidavit which reads as follows:

“Antonio D. Villapando, Jose R. Barros, Rufo
Javier, Emilio A. Mascardo, Efigenio Panganiban, Leon Salumbides y
Potenciano Desembrana, previo juramento, en forma legal, declaran: Que
la motion de protesta presentada en esta causa con fecha 20 de junio de
1934, y suscrita por Emilio A. S’iazon en su propia representation, y en
nombre y representacion de los aqui declarantes, f ue de hecho
presentada, suscrita y jurada bajo nuestra expresa autorizacion; que los
declarantes tambien ratifican y aprueban y hacen suyo todo lo que el
mencionado Sr. Siazon ha hecho hasta ahora en.relation a dicha morion de
protesta.”

This affidavit was sworn to on July 9, 1934. In view
of this affidavit Judge Gutierrez David denied the motion to dismiss
the protest. Whereupon this petition for a writ of prohibition was
filed. This petition alleges in substance that the respondent judge
lacks jurisdiction to hear and decide this protest for the following
reasons: That in the motion under consideration two protests are joined,
one for the office of municipal president and the other for the offices
of municipal councilors, and that said motion is not signed by any of
the candidates for the office of municipal councilor or by any person
competent to appear for them.

In the case of Lichauco vs. Alejandrino and
Weinmann (21 Phil., 58), Faustino Lichauco, who was not an attorney,
brought that action for himself and in representation of his coheirs.
That case seems to have been tried by the lower court upon the theory
that all of the interested parties were present. This court set aside
the judgment of the lower court with this proviso: “* * * unless the
coheirs of Faustino Lichauco, within a period of ten days from
notification of this decision, shall appear personally or by attorney in
the Court of First Instance of the Province of Pampanga, either as
plaintiffs or defendants, and in writing indicate their full conformance
with the proceedings had in the present cause. In which case, the Court
of First Instance of the Province of Pampanga is hereby directed to
enter a judgment confirming the judgment heretofore rendered by said
court on the 10th day of February, 1910.”

In the motion of protest now under consideration the
parties in interest, who did not sign the motion, appeared personally
in writing by means of the affidavit quoted above and not only ratified
and approved that motion but also stated that it was presented and sworn
to by Emilio A. Siazon on their behalf and under their express
authorization. This cured, from the date of filing, any defect that the
motion of protest may have had by reason of the fact that Siazon was the
only one of the contestants who signed the same.

Section 479 of the Administrative Code, as amended
by Act No. 3834, prohibits the filing of a joint election protest for
the offices of municipal president and municipal councilor. Although
this point was raised by the herein petitioners for the first time
before this court, in view of the express prohibition in the
above-mentioned section, as amended, the hearing of the motion of
protest under consideration may be continued before the Court of First
Instance of Tayabas as to the contestant Emilio A. Siazon for the office
of municipal president, and, in conformity with the decision of this
court in G. R. No. 42071,^[1]
the other contestants should be allowed to file a separate protest, as
of the date of the filing of the joint protest, within ten days after
receiving notice of this decision.

“It has been frequently decided, and it may be
stated as a general rule recognized by all the courts, that statutes
providing for election contests are to be liberally construed, to the
end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not
be defeated by merely technical objections.” (Galang vs.
Miranda and De Leon, 35 Phil., 269, 271.)

Writ of prohibition denied, without costs.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Butte,
JJ., concur.