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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2539   May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO<br /><br />083 Phil 758

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2539. May 28, 1949.]

    JOSE P. MONSALE, protestant-appellee, v. PAULINO M. NICO, protestee-appellant.

    Cirilo Mapa, Jr. and Jose Gaton for Appellant.

    Felix V. Macalalang for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTION; CANDIDATE’S WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY; LETTER TO WITHDRAW THE WITHDRAWAL FEW DAYS BEFORE ELECTION, EFFECT OF. — There is no question as to the right of a candidate to withdraw or annul his own certificate of candidacy, there being no legal prohibition against such withdrawal. Therefore, on October 10, or thirty-one days before the election, the protestant ceased to be a candidate by his own voluntary act, and as a matter of fact the boards of election inspectors of the municipality of Miagao were duly notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the Commission on Elections dated November 6, 1947, which the subscribed and swore to before a notary public on November 7, whereby he withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only be considered as a new certificate of candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at least sixty days before the election.

    2. ID.; FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY WITHIN A FIXED PERIOD; PURPOSE OF THE LAW. — The evident purposes of the law in requiring the filing of certificates of candidacy and in fixing a time limit therefor are (a) to enable the voters to know, at least sixty days before a regular election, the candidates among whom they are to make the choice, and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast; for it the law did not confine the choice or election by the voters to the duly registered candidates, there might be as many persons voted for as there were voters, and votes might be cast even for unknown or factitious as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.

    3. ID.; CANDIDATE VOTED FOR WHO HAS NOT RESENTED A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY. — A candidate voted for who has not presented a certificate of candidacy has no right to contest the election.

    4. ID.; FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY AFTER EXPIRATION OF TIME LIMIT, WHEN ALLOWED. — The only instance wherein the law permits the filing of a certificate of candidacy after the expiration of the time limit for filing it is when a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed dies or becomes disqualified.


    D E C I S I O N


    OZAETA, J.:


    This is an appeal by the protestee from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo declaring the protestant elected municipal mayor of Miagao as a result of the general elections held on November 11, 1947.

    It appears that the protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on October 10, 1947, but, on November 7, attempted to revive it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The Commission on Elections, however, ruled on November 8 that the protestant could no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal. A canvass of the election returns showed that the protestee Paulino M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another candidate, Gregorio Fagutao, 126, votes; and the protestant Jose F. Monsale, none, evidently because the votes cast in his favor had not been counted for the reason that he was not a registered candidate. Consequently, Nico was proclaimed elected.

    The pivotal question presented in this appeal is whether a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of candidacy may revive it, either by withdrawing his letter of withdrawal or by filing a new certificate of candidacy, after the deadline provided by law for the filing of such certificate.

    Section 31 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180) provides that "no person shall be eligible unless. within the time fixed by law, he files a duly signed and sworn certificate of candidacy." Section 36 provides that "at least sixty days before a regular election, and thirty days at least before a special election, the . . . certificates of candidacy for municipal offices shall be filed with the municipal secretary, who shall immediately send copies thereof to the polling places concerned, to the secretary of the provincial board, and to the Commission on Elections." Section 38 further provides that "if, after the expiration of the time limit for filing certificates of candidacy, a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed should die or become disqualified, any legally qualified citizen may file a certificate of candidacy for the office for which the deceased or disqualified person was a candidate in accordance with the preceding sections on or before midday of the day of the election, and, if the death or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and the midday of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of inspectors of the political division where he is a candidate or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate, with the Commission on Elections."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the present case the protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on October 10, 1947, and requested the Commission on Elections that it "be considered as though it has never been filed at all." There is no question as to the right of a candidate to withdraw or annul his own certificate of candidacy, there being no legal prohibition against such withdrawal. Therefore, on October 10, or thirty-one days before the election, the protestant ceased to be a candidate by his own voluntary act, and as a matter of fact the boards of election inspectors of the municipality of Miagao were duly notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the Commission on Elections dated November 6, 1947, which he subscribed and swore to before a notary public on November 7, whereby he withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only be considered as a new certificate of candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at least sixty days before the election.

    The evident purposes of the law in requiring the filing of certificates of candidacy and in fixing a time limit therefor are (a) to enable the voters to know, at least sixty days before a regular election, the candidates among whom ,they are to make the choice, and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast; for if the law did not confine the choice or election by the voters to the duly registered candidates, there might be as many persons voted for as there were voters, and votes might be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.

    The only instance wherein the law permits the filing of a certificate of candidacy after the expiration of the time limit for filing it is when a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed dies or becomes disqualified.

    The Commission on Elections was, therefore, right in holding as it did that the protestant "can no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal." In the case of Clutario v. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. L-1704, this court sustained the ruling of said commission upon similar facts that "by his own voluntary act and deed petitioner has nullified his certificate of candidacy and in the light of the election laws such certificate of candidacy has been definitely withdrawn, hence nonexisting."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under section 174 of the Revised Election Code, "a petition contesting the election of a provincial or municipal officer-elect shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province by any candidate voted for in said election and who has presented a certificate of candidacy." This clearly implies that a candidate voted for who has not presented a certificate of candidacy has no right to contest the election. In other words, the herein protestant, not being a registered candidate, has no standing before the court.

    The judgment appealed from is reversed and the protest is ordered dismissed, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PERFECTO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    There is no question that in the election held on November 11, 1947, protestant-appellee Dr. Jose F. Monsale received 2,877 votes for the position of Mayor of Miagao, Iloilo, against 2,276 votes received by protestee-appellant Paulino M. Nico, the candidate who received the second largest number of votes and, therefore, Monsale was elected Mayor of Miagao with a majority of 601 votes against the one who occupied the second place.

    There is no more basic principle in our government than the one enunciated in the fundamental law to the effect that sovereignty resides in the people. That is the cornerstone of the system of democracy established in this country by the people solemnly expressed in the Constitution. The means through which the people exercise that sovereignty is popular suffrage. No reason or pretext should be availed of to defeat or to cause the failure of the popular will as expressed in an election.

    In the present case, there is absolutely no question that the people decided to elect Dr. Jose F. Monsale as Mayor of Miagao. That popular decision should not and could not be reversed without violating the most fundamental principle of our democracy and jeopardizing popular sovereignty.

    The question as to the legal effects of Dr. Monsale’s withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy has been squarely raised in the petition filed with this Supreme Court in Nico v. Blanco (81 Phil., 213), and amply discussed by the parties, who are the same appearing now before us in the present case.

    Upon the decision of said case on June 30, 1948, a year age, we took occasion to express in unmistakable terms our position in the concurring opinion which is reproduced as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The procedural grounds stated in the decision penned by Mr. Justice Bengzon are not the only ones that induced us to vote for the denial of the petition. We are of opinion that there are substantive grounds upon which to base the denial, and the corresponding legal question should be faced and decided squarely, because it has been squarely raised in the pleadings, it was the subject of extensive arguments by counsel, and upon it the members of this Court have thoroughly deliberated.

    "The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a technicality that should be enforced before the election, but can be disregarded after the electorate has made the choosing. This is only in accordance with the doctrine, laid down by the Supreme Court, to effect the provisions of the election laws, generally, are mandatory before the election and directory after. Here we are reiterating an opinion expressed in another case the decision of which is pending promulgation weeks ago. If respondent Monsale has garnered the majority of the votes cast for Mayor of Miagao, notwithstanding the fact that he has withdrawn his certificate of candidacy, a withdrawal that he withdrew two days before the election, the electors completely disregarding what has been done about said certificate a candidacy, it will necessitate much more than a whole system of political philosophy to convince us not to give effect to the will of the people. The solemn declaration in the fundamental law that sovereignty resides in the people would, otherwise, be whimsical.

    "No pretense is made that, besides the disputed effects of a withdrawn withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy, any evil has resulted by the shifting attitude of a candidate, in regard to the orderly holding of suffrage, on any sector of public interest. Without putting in issue the legislative wisdom regarding the filing of a certificate of candidacy, there is no way of brushing aside the universal conviction to the effect that election legal provisions are enacted, never to stifle or defeat the popular will, but give it the freest sway, as an indispensable factor in the existence, functioning and preservation of democracy.

    "The petition should be dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Then we regretted that the majority of the Supreme Court abstained from deciding a question squarely presented before us. Our regret is amply justified by the fact that if, after all, the majority had to arrive at the result by which the present case is disposed of, there was absolutely no reason why that majority refused to say so since June, 1948, so as to avoid the waste of time, attention and energies entailed by allowing this case to drag on for a whole year for no useless purpose; thus, delaying the administration of justice in a case in which many thousands of inhabitants of Miagao, if not the hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the whole Province of Iloilo, were and are interested.

    Our position of one year ago has not changed. Our faith in popular rule as the only system of government compatible with human dignity remains unshakable, and we cannot betray that faith by depriving the people of Miagao of the services of the mayor they have freely chosen in an election regularly and legally conducted.

    We cannot agree with the majority in their reversing the appealed judgment, as we feel that the reversal is one of the hardest blows ever received by a democracy tottering under the menaces of totalitarian forces that are trying to overwhelm the world under the rosy promises of a communistic ideology. In no other time have we felt it more imperative the need of the strictest adherence to the principles of democracy than nowadays when democracy appears to be at a premium even in countries that have made avowed profession for democratic ideals by embodying them in their charters and fundamental laws.

    We vote to affirm the appealed judgment.

    G.R. No. L-2539   May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO<br /><br />083 Phil 758


    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