Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > November 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17850 November 28, 1964 - JOSE MALIMIT v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-17850. November 28, 1964.]

JOSE MALIMIT, Protestant-Appellant, v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO, Protestee-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-17851. November 28, 1964]

JOSE MALIMIT, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. for Protestant-Appellant.

Ismael B. Sanchez for Protestee-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ELECTION PROTESTS; QUO WARRANTO; DATE OF PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES CONSIDERED THE DATE OF FILING OF PETITION. — While it is true that the original petition for quo warranto contesting the right to office of proclaimed candidates was mailed, addressed to the clerk of the court of first instance, within the one week period after the proclamation provided therefor by law (Section 173, Revised Election Code), it is likewise a fact that the required docket fees were paid only after the expiration of said period; consequently, it is held that the date of such payment must be deemed to be the real date of filing of the aforesaid petition and not the date when it was mailed.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Jose Malimit and Esteban Degamo were opposing candidates for mayor, whereas Vicente Acain ran for vice-mayor, of Carmen, Agusan, in the general elections held on November 10, 1959. On the 16th of said month the municipal board of canvassers, by a vote of five to three, proclaimed Malimit as mayor-elect but suspended the canvass and corresponding proclamation in relation to the position of vice-mayor, at the request of Acain who claimed that the election returns for two precincts had been tampered with. As the three members of the board of canvassers who voted against the proclamation of Malimit refused to sign the certificate of canvass on the ground that the municipal treasurer’s copy of the election returns for precinct No. 6 had been tampered with by making it appear therein that Malimit had obtained 139 instead of 39 votes, the matter was submitted to the Commission on Elections who, on November 24, 1959, nullified the canvass and proclamation made on November 16, and authorized its representative in Agusan to appoint substitutes for the five members of the board of canvassers who voted in favor thereof.

On December 3, 1959, Malimit filed with Us a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to annul the above-mentioned resolution of the Commission on Elections and prevent its enforcement, but the same was dismissed for lack of merit.

After a recanvass of the votes for mayor and vice-mayor, the reconstituted board of canvassers, on December 7,1959, proclaimed Degamo and Palarca as mayor and vice-mayor elect by 1,012 and 944 votes, respectively, as against their closest opponents, Malimit and Acain, who obtained 957 and 483 votes, respectively.

On December 14, 1959 Malimit instituted quo warranto proceedings against Degamo in the Court of First Instance of Agusan. The complaint was later amended to include the office of vice-mayor (Special Case No. 97), and on December 21, 1959 Malimit also filed an election protest against Degamo in the same court (Election Case No. 16).

On January 4, 1960 Malimit and Acain filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, with preliminary injunction, with Us (G.R. No. L-16445) to annul the proclamation of Degamo and Palarca and prohibit them from assuming office. On May 23, 1960, We dismissed the petition holding that "upon the filing of the aforementioned petition for a writ of quo warranto and election protest on December 17 and 28, 1959, respectively, the Court of First Instance of Agusan acquired exclusive authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of Degamo and the validity of the proclamation made by the municipal board of canvassers on December 7, 1959", and that "We cannot, upon the authority of the petition herein filed on January 4, 1960, determine said questions without encroaching upon the jurisdiction of said court of first instance, which is the duty of this body, as the highest Court of the land, not only to respect, but, also to uphold."cralaw virtua1aw library

On October 8, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Agusan, after a preliminary hearing, issued a resolution dismissing the petition for quo warranto mentioned heretofore for having been filed out of time and for lack of jurisdiction, the pertinent portions thereof reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After a careful examination of the record of the case, the Court finds that on December 14, 1959, Jose Malimit, thru Counsel, mailed to the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Agusan one copy of a petition for quo warranto against Esteban Degamo on the ground that the latter was not eligible for the Office of Mayor of Carmen, Agusan, for lack of residence. This letter was received by the Clerk of Court on December 17, 1959. Jose Malimit’s counsel in the preliminary hearing manifested that a money order for the amount of P16.00 to cover the docketing fee was enclosed in the envelope containing the petition but this is contradicted by Official Receipt 177450 which shows that the amount of P16.00 was actually received on January 5, 1960, the date when said official receipt was issued."cralaw virtua1aw library

"On January 7, 1960, according to the note of the docket clerk written at the bottom of the petition, said petition was brought to the attention of the Court for the first time and forthwith an order was issued requiring respondent Esteban Degamo to answer the petition within five days from receipt of said order which shall be served upon the latter by the Sheriff."cralaw virtua1aw library

"For failure to pay the sheriff’s fees, the order of the Court of January 7, 1960 was not served upon the respondent immediately. Not until March 14, 1960 when the fee was paid that the sheriff transmitted said order to the Chief of Police of Carmen, Agusan, for service upon the Respondent. This is more than two months from the date of its issuance by the Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

"On June 3, 1960, without leave of Court, the original petition amended. The amended petition included two quo warrantos, one for the office of Mayor and the other for Vice-Mayor. The consolidation of these two quo warrantos in one single case is, in the opinion of the Court, improper, following the spirit of Section 174 of the Revised Election Code which provides that each contest shall refer exclusively to one office. Granting, however, that this consolidation is legal, still the amended petition could no longer confer jurisdiction upon the Court because it was filed out of time, to be exact nearly six months after the proclamation of the respondents as mayor and vice-mayor of Carmen."cralaw virtua1aw library

"In fact, even the original quo warranto for the office of mayor was filed out of time. The proclamation of Esteban Degamo as mayor took place on December 7, 1959 and although the petition for quo warranto was mailed on December 14, 1959 to the Clerk of Court and under the Rules, the date of mailing is considered the date of filing, yet for lack of docketing fee and extra copy of the petition, said petition was only docketed on January 7, 1960, one month after the proclamation of respondent Esteban Degamo. The petition was considered only filed on the date the docketing fee was paid."cralaw virtua1aw library

"Under section 173 of the Revised Election Code, a petition for quo warranto must be filed within one week after proclamation and shall be decided within thirty days from the filing of the complaint. From the records, it is evident that both the original petition and the amended petition for quo warranto were filed out of time and the period of thirty days for hearing and decision has long expired thru the inaction of the petitioner."cralaw virtua1aw library

The court likewise dismissed the election case of Malimit against Degamo for failure on the part of the former to prosecute his case, and for lack of jurisdiction.

We agree with the trial court that the quo warranto proceeding was commenced after the expiration of the period of one week after proclamation provided therefor by law (Section 173, Revised Election Code). True, the original petition was mailed and addressed to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Agusan on December 14, 1959, but it is likewise true that the required docket fees were paid only on January 5, 1960. This latter date must be deemed to be the real date of filing of the aforesaid petition and not the date when it was mailed. Before the payment of docket fees the case is not deemed duly registered and docketed (Lazaro v. Endencia, 57 Phil., 552; In the matter of the petition for citizenship of Jimmy Lee, G.R. No. L- 15027, January 31, 1964).

It not being disputed that the proclamation of Degamo as mayor- elect was made on December 7, 1959, it is clear that the petition for quo warranto was filed out of time.

With respect to the election protest mentioned heretofore, the record discloses that the same was dismissed not for lack of jurisdiction — as appellant claims in his third assignment of error — but due to his failure to prosecute the case (Order of the lower court of July 18, 1960). Consequently, appellant’s contention in this regard is without merit.

WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, 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






November-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17064 November 9, 1964 - FIDEL GERALDEZ v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19642 November 9, 1964 - IN RE: NILDA TSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17020 November 17, 1964 - PABLO ALMARINEZ v. CRESENCIANA MANABAT POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17118 November 17, 1964 - IN RE: UY ENG HIOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16677 November 27, 1964 - LAMBERTO YNOTORIO, ET AL. v. CANUTA LIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17445 November 27, 1964 - MANILA UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-17642 November 27, 1964 - CANDIDA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18922 November 27, 1964 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18208 November 27, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-19133 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX MAGPANTAY

  • G.R. No. L-20138 November 27, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR SEGARINO Y BORGA

  • G.R. No. L-21951 November 27, 1964 - IN RE: UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-9866-7 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN TIONGSON Y DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14250 November 28, 1964 - MARIA LOURDES PRIANES v. FERMIN HENSON

  • G.R. No. L-15945 November 28, 1964 - PORFIRIO VILLAMOR v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

  • G.R. Nos. L-16076-77 November 28, 1964 - ESTEBAN VILLANUEVA v. MISAMIS LUMBER Co., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17249 November 28, 1964 - LICOTEDRA PARCOTILO v. FILOMENA PARCOTILO

  • G.R. No. L-17401 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO RAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-17469 November 28, 1964 - JUAN SORIANO v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

  • G.R. No. L-17850 November 28, 1964 - JOSE MALIMIT v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-18116 November 28, 1964 - CLODUALDO MENESES v. ESTANISLAO LUAT

  • G.R. Nos L-18444-45 November 28, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN

  • G.R. No. L-18487 November 28, 1964 - GENERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LIANGA BAY LOGGING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18621 November 28, 1964 - SALVADOR D. LACUNA v. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS

  • G.R. No. L-18891 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. MELCHOR TIONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19299 November 28, 1964 - FELIZA JOVEN DE JESUS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-19473 November 28, 1964 - REMEDIOS L. VDA. DE LACSAMANA v. DOMINGO M. CABANGON

  • G.R. No. L-19518 November 28, 1964 - TRINIDAD A. DEAÑO v. DIOGENEZ GODINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19519 November 28, 1964 - IN RE: ANANIAS ABUSTAN v. RUPERTO FERRER

  • G.R. No. L-19564 November 28, 1964 - SERREE INVESTMENT CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-19733 November 28, 1964 - ARSENIO L. CANLAS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC

  • G.R. No. L-20031 November 28, 1964 - MAGDALENA RULLAN v. BERNARDO O. VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20043 November 28, 1964 - LOURDES RAMIREZ-CUADERNO v. ANGEL CUADERNO

  • G.R. No. L-20228 November 28, 1964 - ROMANA CAMPITA v. AQUILINO L. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-20345 November 28, 1964 - RICARDO HAUTEA v. RAMON S. MAGALLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20403 November 28, 1964 - TOMAS S. CARPIO v. CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA

  • G.R. No. L-20484 November 28, 1964 - VIDAL PAULINO v. ADELAIDA ROSENDO

  • G.R. No. L-20860 November 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-21189 November 28, 1964 - JOSE AVENDAÑO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, ET AL.