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
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46375   November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 436

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 46375. November 2, 1938.]

    GERONIMO SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA and MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, Respondents.

    Arsenio H. Lacson, for Petitioner.

    Alfonso E. Mendoza, for respondent De la Fuente.

    Hermenegildo Atienza in his own behalf.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTIONS; REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARDS OF THE OPPOSITION PARTY. — What is fundamentally important, in the interest of purity of elections, is that the minority or opposition party be properly represented on the boards. To this end, elaborate provisions have been inserted in the Election Code regarding the constitution of said boards, the appointment of their members and the intervention of the political parties therein.

    2. ID.; ID. — Section 71 of the Election Code (Commonwealth Act No. 357) concedes the third inspector of election "to the party of the opposing candidate, and should there be more than one opposing party presenting a candidate, said inspector shall belong to the party first organized in the locality." In other words, the right to the third inspector of election is predicated on the existence of the opposing candidate in the impending election. It does not appear from the petition that the Partido Socialista has presented a candidate for Assembly-man in the North District of Manila.

    3. ID.; ID.; MANDAMUS. — As mandamus does not lie except where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and as the remedy never issues in doubtful cases (Tabigue v. Duvall 16 Phil., 324; Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Dexter and Unson, 41 Phil., 289), the petition was denied with costs against the petitioner.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Hermenegildo Atienza as president of the municipal board of the City of Manila to appoint an inspector of election for the Partido Socialista in each and every precinct of the North Assembly District of Manila. The petitioner is Geronimo Santiago, president of the Partido Socialista. The other respondent, Manuel de la Fuente, is said to be the president of the seceding Partido Democrata to which, it is alleged, the minority inspector was granted by the respondent Atienza.

    The petitioner alleges that the Partido Socialista is "a duly organized political group, existing since June 20, 1935" ; that in the election held in the City of Manila on September 17, 1935, Segundo Agustin was the official candidate of that party and obtained third place; that Gregorio Perfecto and Engracio Clemeña who obtained first and second places, respectively, both belong to the party resulting from the fusion of the Nacionalista Pros and Antis and the Democrata Pros and Antis; that because of the fusion, the respondent Manuel de la Fuente formed a separate political organization of seceding democratas; that on September 19, 1938, the third inspector which should correspond to the Partido Socialista was granted by the president of the municipal board to the organization headed by the respondent Manuel de la Fuente; that this action of the present of the municipal board is in violation of section 72 of the Commonwealth Act no. 357 which prohibits the granting of inspectors of election "to any branch of fraction which has seceded from its respective party, or from the party resulting from their fusion" ; and that the Partido Socialista, represented by the petitioner, is the party entitled to the minority election inspector.

    The respondents filed separate answers to the petition. In the answer of the respondent Manuel de la Fuente, it is averred that the third election inspector for the coming November election in the North District of Manila was granted not to the Partido Democrata, but to the Alianza Democratica which is an alliance of the Radical, Frente Popular and Democrata parties; that the Partido Radical which was founded on November 15, 1930, and which is one of the three component parties of the Alianza Democratica, is the oldest opposition party in the City of Manila, that the Partido Socialista does not have any candidate of its own in the North District of Manila in the coming November election; and that the Partido Socialista headed by the petitioner Geronimo Santiago is a member of the Frente Popular which is in turn a party-member of the Alianza Democratica; and that, therefore, the socialistas are already represented by the third election inspector accorded the Alianza Democratica.

    In his answer, the respondent Hermenegildo Atienza denies having granted the third inspector to the party of the respondent Manuel de la Fuente, stating that after he had signed a resolution appointing said inspector from the list submitted by Manuel de la Fuente, the latter withdrew his list in favor of the list submitted by Alfonso Mendoza representing the Alianza Democrata. —; that representation was made that Pascual Santos was to be the official candidate of the alliance in the north district and that for the purpose of the Electoral Code said Pascual Santos was also to represent the Partido Radical in the north district; and that in granting the inspector to the Alianza Democrata-Radical he was acting in accordance with the provision of the Electoral Code.

    Although some important facts are controverted, which should ordinarily be proved or clarified before proceeding to the determination of the conflicting claims of the parties, the urgent nature of the controversy demands its expeditious settlement. Without indulging in an extensive discussion are regards the purposes of political representation on the boards of election inspectors under our Electoral System, it may be stated as a general proposition that what is fundamentally important, in the interest of purity of elections, is that the minority or opposition party be properly represented on the boards. To this end, elaborate provisions have been inserted in the Election Code regarding the constitution of said boards, the appointment of their members and the intervention of the political parties therein. In the present case, there is no controversy as regards the right of the majority party to the two inspectors. Neither is the right of the opposition party to representation on the boards disputed. The issue is: Which of the two contending opposition parties is entitled to this representation?

    Section 71 of the Election Code, which was approved and took effect on August 22, 1938, except as to the matter indicated in section 186 thereof, provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In case the two major parties unite. — In case the parties which polled the largest and the next largest number of votes at the next preceding election present only one candidate for each office, the other inspector shall belong to the party of the opposing candidate, and should there be more than one opposing party presenting a candidate, said inspector shall belong to the party first organized in the locality."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The foregoing provision concedes the third inspector of election "to the party of the opposing candidate, and should there be more than one opposing party presenting a candidate, said inspector shall belong to the party first organized in the locality." In other words, the right to the third inspector of election is predicated on the existence of the opposing candidate in the impending election. Whether this condition is wise or unwise, expedient or inexpedient, is not for us to say. The wisdom and expediency of legislation is a matter which should be passed upon and determined by the co÷rdinate department of the Government. It does not appear from the petition that the Partido Socialista has presented a candidate for Assembly-man in the North District of Manila. On the contrary, it is stated in the answer of the respondent De la Fuente "that the Partido Socialista does not have any candidate of its own in the North District of the City of Manila in the coming November elections." This is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of his réplica. The petition, therefore, fails to establish his legal right to political representation of the boards of inspectors. As mandamus does not lie except where the petitioner has a clear legal right to the thing demanded and as the remedy never issues in doubtful cases (Tabigue v. Duvall, 16 Phil., 324; Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Dexter and Unson, 41 Phil., 289), the petition is hereby denied with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46375   November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 436


    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