Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > February 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4489 February 25, 1908 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE C. ABREU

010 Phil 213:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4489. February 25, 1908. ]

RAMON HONTIVEROS, Plaintiff, v. JOSE C. ABREU, judge of First Instance of the Fifteenth Judicial District, and ANTONIO HABANA, Defendants.

Ramon Hontiveros, in his own behalf.

Jose Altavas, for Defendants.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ELECTION LAW; MANDAMUS. — The person protesting in a contested-election case having personally requested that the proceedings in the Court of First Instance, under section 27 of the Election Law, be finally determined by that court, and the court having so determined the case, no action by the protesting party can be maintained for a writ of mandamus directing the lower court to proceed further with the case.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


The plaintiff brought this original action of mandamus in this court asking for a judgment directing the defendant judge of the Court of the First Instance of Capiz to proceed with an election contest then claimed to be pending before him. The defendants have appeared and demurred to the complaint and the case is now before us for resolution of the demurrer.

The complaint alleges that at the general election held on the 5th day of November, 1907, for the office of provincial governor of Capiz, the plaintiff was the candidate of the Partido Nacional Progresista, and that the defendant, Antonio Habana, was the candidate of the Partido Modernista; that the defendant, Habana, was declared elected by a majority of 250 votes; that the plaintiff presented a protest to the Court of First Instance in accordance with the provisions of section 27 of the Election Law (Act No. 1582); that in this proceeding he asked that the ballot boxes of twenty-four of the election precincts in the province be opened and the ballots counted; that the judge of the court below ordered eight of these boxes to be opened and the votes counted, but refused to order the remaining boxes opened on the ground that as to the remaining boxes the plaintiff had presented no evidence showing that any fraud had been committed in those precincts.

The question which the plaintiff seeks to have decided in this proceeding is whether or not in an election contest the court is bound to open all the boxes specified in the protest or only those boxes therein specified as to which some proof is offered of fraud or irregularity.

In our opinion the plaintiff has lost his right to have this question determined by this court by reason of subsequent proceedings taken by him in the court below. The complaint alleges that after the ruling of that court requiring proof of specific acts of fraud, or irregularity before ballot boxes could be opened, and on the 17th of December, 1907, he, the plaintiff, presented a motion therein wherein he recited that it was impossible for him to present such proof as the court required and ended his motion in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Said proceedings being thus against the interests of Señor Hontiveros, the undersigned attorney and at-law, acting on behalf and under instructions from the former, has the honor to state to the court that he is unable to proceed with the case on account of his inability to produce the evidence required, and for this reason he moves the court to dismiss the proceedings, and to render such decision as it may deem proper in the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the 21st of December, 1907, the court made the following order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Order. — Whereas, in the course of the trial of this case, the petitioner, by his attorney and at-law, Simeon Dadivas, on December 17 presented a motion praying that these proceedings be terminated because they were opposed to his interests;

"Whereas the petitioner has expressed his conformity to the terms of said motion;

"Whereas, by virtue of this motion for dismissal of the proceedings, it is proper to dismiss the protest made by the petitioner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is therefore decreed that said petition be dismissed with the costs against the petitioner, and the proceedings are hereby declared terminated.

"Notice of this order shall be given to the honorable Executive Secretary at Manila, P.I."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will thus be seen that the election proceeding instituted in the court below by the plaintiff has been terminated and a final judgment entered therein, and that this determination and final judgment were made upon his own express request. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff himself asked the court below to terminate the proceeding definitely, he now brings this suit in this court asking for a judgment directing the court below to proceed with that case. It is very evident that he is not entitled to that relief.

The demurrer is sustained and the plaintiff is given ten days from the date of this order in which to file an amended complaint. If no such amended complaint is filed within that time, the clerk, without further order of this court, will enter a final judgment acquitting the defendants of the complaint, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3720 February 3, 1908 - MARIA COSIO v. ANTONINO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-3971 February 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO BRAGANZA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-4005 February 3, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFO REYES

    010 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-3806 February 4, 1908 - MARIANO MADAMBA v. PELAGIA MAGNO

    010 Phil 86

  • G.R. No. L-3860 February 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO TREMOYA

    010 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3906 February 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO PAGUIA

    010 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-4125 February 5, 1908 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. F. THEODORE ROGERS

    010 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-4552 February 5, 1908 - ARTHUR F. YAMBERT v. J. MCMICKING

    010 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-4092 February 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL CAMPO

    010 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-4165 February 8, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON GAMALINDA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3962 February 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LING SU FAN

    010 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4251 February 10, 1908 - CLEMENTE MANOTOC v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-4193 February 11, 1908 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. MODESTO REYES

    010 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. L-4108 February 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. DOROTEO GALIT QUINTO

    010 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-4217 February 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO CAUAS

    010 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-4328 February 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    010 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 3870 February 14, 1908 - LAZARO REMO ET AL. v. PASTOR ESPINOSA

    010 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3974 February 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO JAMERO

    010 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-3770 February 17, 1908 - CARLOS PABIA SY CHUNG-QUIONG v. FELIPA SY-TIONG TAY CUANSI

    010 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-3939 February 17, 1908 - MENDEZONA & CO. v. MARIANO MORENO

    010 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-4043 February 17, 1908 - ROMAN DE LA ROSA v. GREGORIO REVITA SANTOS

    010 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-3898 February 18, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. TOMAS CABANGIS

    010 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-4014 February 18, 1908 - GENARO HEREDIA v. RAMON SALINAS

    010 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-4139 February 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SAN LUIS

    010 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-4195 February 18, 1908 - ATLANTIC v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-3793 February 19, 1908 - CIRILO MAPA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    010 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-3875 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JANUARIO FRANCISCO

    010 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3998 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POMPOSO BURGUETA, ET AL.

    010 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-4319 February 19, 1908 - STRONG & TROWBRIDGE v. VAN BUSKIRK-CROOK CO.

    010 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-4335 February 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO LINDIO

    010 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-3967 February 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MAQUILAN

    010 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3751 February 21, 1908 - EDUARDA BENEDICTO v. JULIO JAVELLANA

    010 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-4402 February 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX YAPE, ET AL.

    010 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3937 February 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SALUD

    010 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-4138 February 25, 1908 - SY HONG ENG v. SY LIOC SUY

    010 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-4489 February 25, 1908 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE C. ABREU

    010 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-4512 February 25, 1908 - GREGORIO ABENDAN v. MARTIN LLORENTE

    010 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3960 February 27, 1908 - GIL HERMANOS v. JOHN S. HORD

    010 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-4159 February 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GALLEGO

    010 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-4255 February 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIO AUTIZ

    010 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. L-4576 February 27, 1908 - MAURO NAVARRO v. CASIANO GIMENEZ

    010 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-4189 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEYMOUR ADDISON

    010 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-4298 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO MARAVILLA

    010 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4366 February 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GARCIA

    010 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-3471 February 28, 1908 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    010 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-3472 February 29, 1908 - INT’L. BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    010 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-4067 February 29, 1908 - FREDERICK E. MOREY v. LAO LAYCO

    010 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. L-4346 February 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO PESCADOR

    010 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-4469 February 29, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 261