Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > October 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 42386 October 11, 1934 - PEDRO SALDAÑA v. TRANQUILINO NAVARRO

060 Phil 738:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42386. October 11, 1934.]

PEDRO SALDAÑA, Protestant-Appellant, v. TRANQUILINO NAVARRO, Protestee-Appellee.

Claudio R. Sandoval for Appellant.

Vicente J. Francisco for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTIONS; REQUISITES OF A MOTION OF PROTEST; JURISDICTION. — Under the facts stated in the decision, Held: That the allegation "That said protestant and protestee are qualified voters of the municipality of Samal, Province of Bataan, the only two inscribed candidates for the office of municipal president of said municipality, and that they were voted for said office in the general elections held on June 5, 1934," contained in a motion of protest, substantially complies with all requisites prescribed by section 479 of Act No. 3834 to confer jurisdiction upon a Court of First Instance to take cognizance of an election protest.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


Pedro Saldaña appeals to this court from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bataan which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Acting upon Attorney Vicente J. Francisco’s motion for dismissal of the election protest filed by Pedro Saldaña against Tranquilino Navarro in the above entitled case, on the ground that it is not stated in said protest that the protestant or the protestee are ’duly registered candidates’, which is an indispensable requisite prescribed by the Election Law to confer jurisdiction upon the courts to take cognizance of these cases, the court, after having carefully examined all the pleadings for and against said motion, has arrived at the conclusion that said motion for dismissal should be granted. (See Tabada v. Zandueta and Vergara, 47 Phil., 859.) Even granting that the word ’inscribed’ is synonymous to ’registered’, inasmuch as the law precisely requires that there be an allegation to the effect that the certificate of candidacy of a candidate has been ’duly filed’, and there being no such allegation in the motion of protest, the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of said case.

"Wherefore, the motion for dismissal filed by said Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, representing Tranquilino Navarro, the protestee in this case, is granted, and this case is dismissed, with costs against the protestant. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

In support of his appeal, the protestant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court in its said resolution, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The lower court erred in declaring that the protestant should allege in his motion of protest that his certificate of candidacy was ’duly filed’.

"2. The lower court erred in ordering the dismissal of this case with costs against the protestant."cralaw virtua1aw library

The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not the facts alleged in the motion of protest filed by the appellant Pedro Saldaña are sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of First Instance of Bataan to take cognizance of said case.

Paragraph 2 of said motion of protest reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. That said protestant and protestee are qualified voters of the municipality of Samal, Province of Bataan, the only two inscribed candidates for the office of municipal president of said municipality, and that they were voted for said office in the general elections held on June 5, 1934."cralaw virtua1aw library

The trial court, in ordering the dismissal of the motion of protest under consideration, based its opinion on the ground that it did not allege that the certificate of candidacy has been "duly filed" as required by section 479 of Act No. 3834.

In the case of Acerden v. Tonolete (52 Phil., 409), the motion of protest contained the following allegation of jurisdictional facts: "That in the general elections held on June 5, 1928, the protestant and protestee were the only two candidates registered and voted for who contended for the office of municipal president of the municipality of Carigara." The question having been raised whether or not the above facts were sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, with which said motion was filed, in order to take cognizance of the case, this court decided it in the affirmative.

Between the allegation of jurisdictional facts contained in the motion of protest in the above cited case of Acerden v. Tonolete and that contained in the motion of protest under consideration, there is no essential difference. Neither is there any essential difference between the word "registered" used in the motion of protest in the former case and "inscribed" used herein, inasmuch as they are synonymous. (IV Escriche, Dictionary of Law and Jurisprudence; Dictionary of the Spanish Language.)

In view of the foregoing consideration, we are of the opinion and so hold that the allegation "That said protestant and protestee are qualified voters of the municipality of Samal, Province of Bataan, the only two inscribed candidates for the office of municipal president of said municipality, and that they were voted for said office in the general elections held on June 5, 1934," contained in a motion of protest, substantially complies with all the requisite prescribed by section 479 of Act No. 3834 to confer jurisdiction upon a Court of First Instance to take cognizance of an election protest.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is reversed and it is ordered that the motion of protest be reinstated and the proceedings therein continued, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte and Goddard, 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






October-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 41676 October 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BORROMEO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 40681 October 2, 1934 - DY BUNCIO & COMPANY, INC. v. ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. 40940 October 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO BALUBAR

    060 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 41036 October 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MORENO

    060 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 42391 October 10, 1934 - ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL CO., INC. v. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 41523 October 11, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO H. DOMONDON

    060 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 42386 October 11, 1934 - PEDRO SALDAÑA v. TRANQUILINO NAVARRO

    060 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 42421 October 12, 1934 - MAX BLOUSE v. AMALIA MORENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. 36900 October 19, 1934 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU

    060 Phil 745

  • G.R. No. 41359 October 19, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS LAYOS

    060 Phil 760

  • G.R. No. 41008 October 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDORO T. POLICHER

    060 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. 40393 October 25, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CORNEJO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. 39086 October 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONG CHIAT LAY, ET AL.

    060 Phil 788

  • G.R. No. 42103 October 29, 1934 - TENG CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    060 Phil 794

  • G.R. Nos. 39270 & 39271 October 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX GAYRAMA

    060 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 41098 October 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVINO ONGJUNCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. 41219 October 31, 1934 - CITY OF MANILA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY

    060 Phil 813