PLACIDO ROSAL, PETITIONER, VS. DIONISIO FORONDA, ANTONIO ORDAS, AND FUNDADOR VARILLA, RESPONDENTS.

As
a result of the election for the office of mayor held on December 14,
1937 in the municipality of Buguey, Province of Cagayan, Placido Rosal,
the petitioner, received 608 votes, Dionisio Foronda 672 votes, Antonio
Ordas 443 votes and Fundador Varilla 234 votes, respectively.
Consequently the respondent Dionisio Foronda was proclaimed mayor elect
of said municipality on December 16, 1937 by the municipal council of
Buguey, acting as a board of canvassers. Placido Rosal contested the
election of Dionisio Feronda, including as respondents the other
candidates who received votes, and in the motion filed by him it was
alleged that frauds and irregularities were committed in precincts 4, 6
and 7 and that if the votes cast for the office of mayor were recounted
he would be elected with a plurality of votes over his opponents. The
respondent answered the motion of protest, denying under oath the
allegations therein, and in turn interposed a counter-protest wherein
it was alleged that frauds and irregularities were also committed in
precincts 1 and 5, and that if the votes were recounted his plurality
over the petitioner would be increased, so that his election should be
confirmed. The trial court set the case for hearing on February 15,
1938 and on said date appointed as commissioners for the revision of
votes the attorneys for both the petitioner and the respondent. Said
commissioners reopened the ballot boxes of precinct No. 4 and on
February 17, 1938 submitted their written memorandum. The trial of
February 15,1938 was held in Aparri and its continuance was set for
March 22d of the same year at Tuguegarao. On this latter date the
parties appeared before the court with their respective counsel and the
petitioner through his counsel asked that the hearing of the case be
transferred to some other date and that it be held in Aparri instead of
Tuguegarao, on the ground that some seventy-five witnesses were to
testify for the petitioner and that to bring them to Tuguegarao would
cause the petitioner considerable and unnecessary expense. The
attorneys for the respondent objected to said petition on the ground
that the petitioner had been duly notified of the continuation of the
hearing and that the respondent was then ready to enter into trial,
having brought with him fifteen witnesses who were then present in
court. After hearing the counsel for both parties the trial judge
denied the petition and, as counsel for the petitioner could not adduce
any evidence, definitely dismissed the case, without costs, but with
the expenses theretofore incurred to be charged against said
petitioner. The latter appealed from the order thus issued.

It is alleged by the petitioner that the trial court erred in refusing
to postpone the hearing of the case and to transfer it to Aparri, and
in dismissing definitely said case without giving him the opportunity
to be heard and to present his evidence.

The trial court was
justified and it did not exceed the exercise of the discretion
conferred upon it by law when it proceeded with the trial and prompt
disposal of the case because section 479 of the Revised Administrative
Code, as amended by Act No. 3834, which was then in force, provides
that election protests must be terminated and decided within one year
from the filing thereof (Portillo vs. Salvani, 54 Phil, 543).
According to section 154 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended
by section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 145, the judge which took
cognizance of said protest had his permanent residence in the Province
of Cagayan, the capital of which is Tuguegarao. Section 161 of said
Code, as amended by section 4 of Act No. 145, provides that the Court
of First Instance of Cagayan shall hold sessions in Aparri yearly on
the first Tuesday of January. Except during this period the court shall
divide its time for holding sessions between the other places fixed by
law, including the capital of the province. Had the court postponed the
trial of February 15th for the purpose of holding it in Aparri on March
22, 1938, it would have disregarded the law and employed part of its
time for holding sessions in the capital and in the municipalities of
Abulog and Tuao. This was undoubtedly the other reason which the trial
court took into consideration in denying the postponement of the trial
and holding the same in Aparri. When the case was called for hearing
for the first time on February 15, 1938 the ballot boxes in precinct
No. 4 were opened and the commissioners for the revision of votes were
appointed, one of them being the attorney for the petitioner, said
attorney being notified that the hearing would be continued on the 22d
day of the next month and that then the parties could present all the
evidence they desire to present. In election cases the parties and
their attorneys should cooperate with the court in the prompt disposal
of the same because the law directs that said cases be decided within
one year. If the petitioner and his attorney desired to cooperate with
the court they would have brought along their witnesses to Tuguegarao,
or had they wished to save expenses, they would have taken the
deposition of said witnesses for presentation at the trial.

With respect to the last assignment of error, it seems to us evident
that the trial court did not err in finally dismissing the protest. The
petitioner cannot complain that he was unable to present his evidence
because he was given ample opportunity to do so. With a little
diligence and without extraordinary effort he could have presented all
his witnesses or in lieu thereof their depositions, for the taking of
which there was sufficient and reasonable time.

The trial
court not having committed any of the errors assigned, the order
appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance
against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.