January 1917 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > January 1917 Decisions >
G.R. No. 12300 January 16, 1917 - AGATON SIBAL v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.
036 Phil 81:
036 Phil 81:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 12300. January 16, 1917. ]
AGATON SIBAL, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC and ALBERTO PUNSALAN, Respondents.
Jose Lopez Lizo for Petitioner.
No appearance for the respondent judge.
The other respondent in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. ELECTION CONTESTS, JUDGMENT; CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDICATION. — Where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the , in the determination of the question of fact and that question has been determined by the court after hearing, such determination is conclusive and cannot be controverted in a collateral proceeding. (Navarro v. Jimenez, 23 Phil. Rep., 557.)
D E C I S I O N
TRENT, J. :
At the general election held on June 6, 1916, in the municipality of Bamban, Province of Tarlac, there were forty-five votes cast for Agaton Sibal and forth-three for Alberto Punsalan. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed the former duly elected president of that municipality. Punsalan filed his motion in the Court of First Instance contesting the election. Judgment was entered directing the municipal board of canvassers to correct the returns by eliminating all the votes cast for Agaton Sibal and to proclaim Punsalan elected. Subsequent thereto, and on October 13, 1916, Sibal instituted the present action in this court, praying that a writ of certiorari issue to the judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tarlac directing him to certify to his court a transcript of the record of the proceedings had in the election contest, and that after hearing, the above mentioned order be set aside as being in excess of jurisdiction.
From the decision of the trial court, which is made a part of the petition, it appears, and the court so found after an examination of the oral testimony presented, that there were two qualified electors in the municipality of Bamban by the name of Agaton Sibal; that both of those men voted at the election; that on examining the ballots there were forty-five containing the names of Agaton Sibal as having been voted for municipal president and forty-three for Alberto Punsalan; that the election inspectors gave all of the forty-five votes to the young of the two Sibals, who was generally known in the municipality by the name of Agaton Sibal 2; that on the forty-five ballots there was no way of distinguishing for which of the two Sibals they were cast; and the oral testimony was presented which tended to show that both of the Sibals were candidates for the office of municipal president. The court thereupon found that the allegations in the contestant’s motion had been established and rendered judgment accordingly.
It will thus be seen that an important question of fact was presented to the trial court and decided by it. The judgment complaint of rests upon the question. It is now urged that the court erred in its finding of fact to the effect that both of the Sibals were candidates for the office of municipal president and we are asked to review the testimony presented and make a different finding of facts. This cannot be done by means of certiorari for the reason that the court had jurisdiction to determine that question. It being true, as found by the trial court, that both of the Sibals and Punsalan were candidates for the same office, it was impossible to determine how many of the forty-five votes cast for Agaton Sibal were intended for the older and how many were intended for the younger of the two. Where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the determination of a question of fact and that question has been determined by the court after hearing such determination is conclusive and cannot be attacked collaterally. (Navarro v. Jimenez, 23 Phil. Rep., 557.)
Let judgment be entered dismissing the petition, with costs against the petitioner, Agaton Sibal. So ordered.
Tores, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
MORELAND, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I agree to the petition on the merits. But I do not agree to the ground on which the dismissal is based, namely, that: "Where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the determination of a question of fact and that question has been determined by the court after hearing, such determination is conclusive and cannot be attacked collaterally." Not such question is involved in this case, in my judgment.
The court had jurisdiction of the proceeding as a matter of law and it exercised that jurisdiction within the limits set by the law. That being so certiorari will not lie.
From the decision of the trial court, which is made a part of the petition, it appears, and the court so found after an examination of the oral testimony presented, that there were two qualified electors in the municipality of Bamban by the name of Agaton Sibal; that both of those men voted at the election; that on examining the ballots there were forty-five containing the names of Agaton Sibal as having been voted for municipal president and forty-three for Alberto Punsalan; that the election inspectors gave all of the forty-five votes to the young of the two Sibals, who was generally known in the municipality by the name of Agaton Sibal 2; that on the forty-five ballots there was no way of distinguishing for which of the two Sibals they were cast; and the oral testimony was presented which tended to show that both of the Sibals were candidates for the office of municipal president. The court thereupon found that the allegations in the contestant’s motion had been established and rendered judgment accordingly.
It will thus be seen that an important question of fact was presented to the trial court and decided by it. The judgment complaint of rests upon the question. It is now urged that the court erred in its finding of fact to the effect that both of the Sibals were candidates for the office of municipal president and we are asked to review the testimony presented and make a different finding of facts. This cannot be done by means of certiorari for the reason that the court had jurisdiction to determine that question. It being true, as found by the trial court, that both of the Sibals and Punsalan were candidates for the same office, it was impossible to determine how many of the forty-five votes cast for Agaton Sibal were intended for the older and how many were intended for the younger of the two. Where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the determination of a question of fact and that question has been determined by the court after hearing such determination is conclusive and cannot be attacked collaterally. (Navarro v. Jimenez, 23 Phil. Rep., 557.)
Let judgment be entered dismissing the petition, with costs against the petitioner, Agaton Sibal. So ordered.
Tores, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
MORELAND, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I agree to the petition on the merits. But I do not agree to the ground on which the dismissal is based, namely, that: "Where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the determination of a question of fact and that question has been determined by the court after hearing, such determination is conclusive and cannot be attacked collaterally." Not such question is involved in this case, in my judgment.
The court had jurisdiction of the proceeding as a matter of law and it exercised that jurisdiction within the limits set by the law. That being so certiorari will not lie.
