ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1927 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 27484 September 1, 1927 - ANGEL LORENZO v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

    050 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 26957 September 2, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON YUSAY

    050 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 26360 September 7, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIBERTO CALLE

    050 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 27234 September 7, 1927 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    050 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 26659 September 9, 1927 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN SERNA

    050 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 26672 September 9, 1927 - PROCESO ECHARRI v. FELICIANO GOMEZ

    050 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. 27054 September 9, 1927 - MACARIA SOLIS v. CHUA PUA HERMANOS

    050 Phil 636

  • G.R. Nos. 26853-26855 September 10, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO UNDIANA

    050 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 27143 September 10, 1927 - QUINTILLANA SAMSON v. MANUEL CARRATALA

    050 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 27178 September 10, 1927 - TIMOTEO UNSON v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    050 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 27213 September 10, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO S. TAN

    050 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 27449 September 10, 1927 - CHUA PUA HERMANOS v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS

    050 Phil 670

  • G.R. Nos. 26598 & 26599 September 17, 1927 - SIA SIMEON VELEZ v. RAMON CHAVES

    050 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 26671 September 17, 1927 - MUNICIPALITY OF ORION v. F. B. CONCHA

    050 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 27209 September 17, 1927 - ANDRES M. GABRIEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA

    050 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 27020 September 19, 1927 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. M. J. MCCUENE

    050 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 27498 September 20, 1927 - IN RE: JOSEFA TONGCO v. ANASTACIA VIANZON

    050 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 28320 September 20, 1927 - RUFO SAN JUAN v. PERFECTO ABORDO

    050 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 26849 September 21, 1927 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINO TOMBIS TRIÑO

    050 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 26771 September 23, 1927 - RUPERTO SANTOS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    050 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 27180 September 24, 1927 - TEODORO DE CASTRO v. MARINO OLONDRIZ

    050 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 26538 September 27, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO SORIANO

    050 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 26844 September 27, 1927 - ISABEL FLORES v. TRINIDAD LIM

    050 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 26941 September 27, 1927 - JUAN ARQUIZA LUTA v. MUNICIPALITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    050 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 27048 September 27, 1927 - SILVESTRA BARON v. ANSELMO SAMPANG

    050 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 27552 September 27, 1927 - MANILA MERCANTILE Co. v. MARIANO FLORES

    050 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 28117 September 27, 1927 - LORENZA SUÑGA v. FRANCISCO TINGIN

    050 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 27110 September 28, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MIANA

    050 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 27120 September 28, 1927 - JUANA AGAPITO v. CANDIDO MOLO

    050 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 26708 September 29, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO RESABAL

    050 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. 27483 September 29, 1927 - ENCARNACION RAMOS v. JUSTO DUEÑO

    050 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 27895 September 30, 1927 - CLEMENTE REYES v. PABLO BORBON

    050 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. 27040 September 29, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO GARALDE

    052 Phil 1000

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 28320   September 20, 1927 - RUFO SAN JUAN v. PERFECTO ABORDO<br /><br />050 Phil 703

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 28320. September 20, 1927.]

    RUFO SAN JUAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. PERFECTO ABORDO, Respondent-Appellant.

    Salvador Barrios for Appellant.

    Roman de Jesus for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTIONS; PROTESTS; ONE OF THE PARTIES DECLARED INELIGIBLE BY PROCLAMATION; EFFECT OF. — The appellant having been declared ineligible for the office of provincial governor to which he had been elected by a proclamation of the Governor-General, the fundamental question raised in the motion for dismissal of the appeal taken from the judgment rendered in the election contest, is whether or not said person declared ineligible can prosecute his appeal in the Supreme Court. After said proclamation there can be no election contest between the two litigants. The controversy should cease as the appellant has been declared hors de combat by the authority of the law.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — If the appellant desires to obtain the logical result of his appeal, that is to say, that after the examination of the ballots he be declared to have a greater number of votes than his opponent, supposing that this were practicable, such a result would be entirely ineffectual and nugatory, because, having been declared ineligible to hold the office in dispute, any judgment that in that event may be rendered in his favor, would be impossible of execution. The same difficulty would occur if it were possible to declare the election between the herein litigants a tie.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — If, on the other hand, the appellant desires to raise the question of the ineligibility of the appellee. such contention could not prosper, because the courts authorized to try election contests ’have no jurisdiction over the eligibility of a candidate elected to hold an office. (Topacio v. Paredes, 23 Phil., 238.) The solution of questions of eligibility for provincial elective offices has been committed by the law to the Executive Department.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLAMOR, J.:


    It appears from the record:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. That on June 24, 1925, the provincial board of Palawan, acting as board of canvassers, proclaimed Perfecto Abordo elected provincial governor of Palawan with 1,444 votes against 1,406 obtained by his opponent Rufo San Juan;

    2. That on July 1, 1925, Rufo San Juan protested in the Court of First Instance of Palawan against the election of Perfecto Abordo, alleging eleven grounds which he specified in his motion of protest;

    3. That the protestee Abordo, in turn, presented a counter-protest alleging four grounds which likewise are specified in his answer;

    4. That during the course of the election contest in the Court of First Instance of Palawan, the same protestant, Mr. San Juan filed another protest with the Executive Bureau of the Government, against the election of the one who then held the office of provincial governor, apparently on account of not being a legal resident of the province at the time of his election;

    5. That this new protest gave rise to administrative proceedings under the provisions of section 408 of the Election Law, which culminated in Proclamation No. 48, series of 1926, of the Governor-General, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Pursuant to the opinion rendered by the Attorney-General in the administrative investigation against the election of Governor Perfecto Abordo of Palawan, concurred in by the Acting Chief, Executive Bureau, and the Secretary of the Interior, wherein it is held that Governor Abordo did not have the required residence in Palawan at the time of election for the office of governor on June second, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, and was therefore ineligible to hold the office of governor of that province, I hereby declare, under the provisions of section four hundred eight of the Election Law, the office of the provincial governor of Palawan to be vacant.

    "In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands to be affixed.

    "Done at the City of Manila, this eighteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six.

    [SEAL] "LEONARD WOOD

    "Governor-General"

    6. That after the hearing of the election contest in the Court of Palawan on January 25, 1927, the Honorable Judge who tried the case, rendered his 74-page decision on March 27, 1927, finding that the protestant Mr. Rufo San Juan had obtained 1,340 votes, and the protestee Mr. Perfecto Abordo, 1,067 votes which were declared null by the court for the reason that Mr. Abordo is not eligible to the office of provincial governor of Palawan;

    7. That in spite of the above-quoted proclamation of the Governor-General, Mr. Abordo appealed from the judgment of the trial court, and in view of said appeal, the records of the proceedings were brought to this court, having been received in the office of the clerk on September 1, 1927;

    8. That on September 8, 1927, counsel for the protestant-appellee filed a motion praying for the dismissal of the appeal, for the following reasons:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) That the respondent Perfecto Abordo’s appeal was presented out of the time fixed by the law, and therefore the decision of the trial court had become final and subject to execution;

    "(2) That said respondent Perfecto Abordo had been declared ineligible for the office of provincial governor of Palawan by his Excellency, the Governor-General, according to Proclamation No. 48, series of 1926, and

    "(3) That protestee Perfecto Abordo, not being registered candidate for the office of provincial governor of Palawan in the general elections of June 2, 1925, was not eligible for election to said office."cralaw virtua1aw library

    9. That notice of said motion having been given to the protestee-appellant, his counsel opposes the dismissal prayed for, for the reasons stated in his answer of the 14th instant.

    Under the facts stated, the fundamental question raised by the motion for dismissal is whether or not the appellant, who was declared ineligible to hold the office in question, according to section 408 of the Election Law, can prosecute his appeal in this court.

    If the appellant desires to obtain the logical result of his appeal, that is to say, that after the examination of the ballots, he be declared to have a greater number of votes than his opponent, supposing this were practicable, such a result would be entirely ineffectual and nugatory, because, having been declared ineligible to hold the office in dispute, any judgment that in that event may be rendered in his favor, would be impossible of execution. The same difficulty would occur if it were possible to declare the election between the herein litigants a tie.

    If, on the other hand, the appellant desires to raise in this appeal, the question of the ineligibility of the appellee, such contention could not prosper, because the courts, authorized to try election contests, have no jurisdiction over the eligibility of a candidate elected to an office. (Topacio v. Paredes, 23 Phil., 238.) The solution of questions of eligibility for provincial elective offices has been committed by the law to the Executive Department.

    Thus it is seen that the situation of the appellant in the present case is necessarily prejudged by the said proclamation of the Governor-General, and it would really be unjust for the parties and for this court and for the electoral body of the Province of Palawan, at this time to entertain an appeal that, after requiring lengthy and arduous labor, could produce only negative results.

    After this proclamation of the Governor-General declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the office in question, there can be no election contest between the two parties who aspire to obtain the palm of victory. The controversy should cease when one of the litigants has been declared hors de combat by the authority of the law. And there is no need to insist that it is to the public interest that election contests should be rapidly and economically decided, avoiding unnecessary delays. In this way the uncertainty as to the result of the election is done away with, the ardor of party contests is quenched, and political repose, which is so necessary to the progress of the country, is restored in the community. It is for this reason that the Legislature has provided that the courts should hear and decide election contests as promptly as possible, in preference to all other kinds of cases, and whether or not they are in regular session.

    We are of the opinion that the second ground for dismissal, alleged by the appellee in his motion dated the 8th of this month, justifies the dismissal prayed for. And having arrived at this conclusion, it is unnecessary to discuss grounds 1 and 3 of said motion.

    For the foregoing, the present appeal must be, as it is hereby, dismissed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 28320   September 20, 1927 - RUFO SAN JUAN v. PERFECTO ABORDO<br /><br />050 Phil 703


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED