Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > January 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12301 January 16, 1917 - MARIANO BELLO v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

036 Phil 83:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12301. January 16, 1917. ]

MARIANO BELLO, Petitioner, v. HERMOGENES REYES, judge of first instance of Isabela, and BERNARDO DACUYCUY, Respondents.

Vicente Singsong Pablo for Petitioner.

No appearance for the respondent judge.

Juan Ll. Evangelista for the Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTION CONTESTS; JURISDICTION; SIGNING OF MOTION OF CONTEST. — A motion of contest, if signed by a duly licensed and practicing attorney upon the authority of the contestant, confers jurisdiction upon the court over the subject matter of the proceedings, provided the necessary jurisdictional facts are alleged. The fact that the attorney was only employed and authorized to prepare, sign, and file the motion of contest does not affect the court’s jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


This is an original action in the Supreme Court, the object of which is to compel the respondent judge, by mandamus, to reinstate a certain election contest and to proceed with the trial thereof.

The case has been submitted upon the merits. Both parties have united with the record a certified copy of the proceedings had in the court below. The facts are these:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At the general election held on June 6, 1916, Mariano Bello and Bernardo Dacuycuy were opposing candidates for the office of president of the municipality of Cagayan, Province of Isabela. Dacuycuy was declared elected by the municipal board of canvassers. Bello instituted proceedings in due time contesting the election. The motion of contest was prepared and filed by Miguel Binag, a duly licensed and practicing attorney, at the request and upon authority of the contestant. He was not, however, authorized to represent the contestant in court after the filing of the motion.

It has been definitely settled in this jurisdiction that a motion of contest, signed by an attorney, is a compliance with the statute and confers jurisdiction upon the court of the subject-matter, provided the same is filed within the time required by law and sets forth the necessary jurisdictional facts. (De Castro v. Salas and Santiago, 34 Phil. Rep., 818.)

The mere fact that Miguel Binag was only employed and authorized to prepare, sign, and file the motion of contest makes no difference in so far as the question under consideration is concerned. Mandamus is the proper remedy when the court dismisses a contest upon an erroneous interpretation of the law.

It is therefore ordered that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent judge to reinstate the election contest and to proceed with trial of the same. Judgment will be entered accordingly, with costs against the respondent, Bernardo Dacuycuy. So ordered.

Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


MORELAND, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I agree to the result in this case under the authority of the De Castro case. I cannot, however, agree that the following from the opinion of the court is a correct statement of the law of mandamus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Mandamus is the proper remedy when the court dismisses a contest upon an erroneous interpretation of the law."




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






January-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11526 January 2, 1917 - B. A. GREEN, ET AL. v. M. LOPEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10270 January 3, 1917 - EMILIO CUSTODIO v. ANDRES CALINAWAN

    041 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. 11555 January 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SOLIMAN

    036 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 11079 January 12, 1917 - MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA (LTD.) v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    036 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 11373 January 13, 1917 - ANACLETO MENDOZA v. MANUEL ARELLANO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 11807 January 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. PIO ESTABAYA

    036 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 11437 January 16, 1917 - BENITO T. LEGARDA v. MARIANO B. ZARATE

    036 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 12300 January 16, 1917 - AGATON SIBAL v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    036 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 12301 January 16, 1917 - MARIANO BELLO v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    036 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 11607 January 17, 1917 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (LTD.) v. ARMANDO C. CAMPS

    036 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 11639 January 18, 1917 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.

    036 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 10487 January 23, 1917 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY CO. (LTD.)

    036 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 11203 January 23, 1917 - T. R. YANGCO v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    036 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 11570 January 23, 1917 - MANUEL LOCSIN RAMA v. ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO RAMOS

    036 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 11448 January 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 11449 January 25, 1917 - THE UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 11979 January 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO MARALIT

    036 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 12179 January 25, 1917 - DOMINGO FAJARDO, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 12293 January 25, 1917 - GREGORIO BASA v. HILARION SENATIN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 12330 January 25, 1917 - YNCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. STANLEY

    036 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11106 January 27, 1917 - ENRIQUE LEGARDA KOH v. LUCIO ONGSIACO

    036 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 11419 January 30, 1917 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FABIAN ARIAS

    036 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 12144 January 31, 1917 - ENRIQUE ALTAVAS v. P. M. MOIR

    036 Phil 198