Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > November 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24914 November 6, 1926 - JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE v. ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR

048 Phil 223:



[G.R. No. 24914. November 6, 1926. ]

JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. Honorable ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, ET AL., Respondents.

Ramon Diokno, for Petitioners.

Gregorio Perfecto for Respondents.


1. ELECTIONS; CONTEST; BOND FOR EXPENSES AND COSTS. — In a contest over the offices of president, vice-president and councilors of a certain municipality a bond was given and approved by the court, in which the signatory parties obligated themselves to respond for the costs and expenses incidental to the contest as regards all of said offices, but only the contestant for the office of president signed as principal. Held: That the bond inured to the benefit of all the contestants, and that after it had been approved by the court, it was improper to dismiss the proceedings as to the other contestants for supposed lack of jurisdiction.

2 ID; ID.; ID.; OBLIGEES NEED NOT BE SPECIFIED BY NAME. — It is not necessary that the bond for costs in election contests should specify the obligees by name. The law intends that the successful party who has paid expenses and costs, shall have the right to collect them, and the bond is a valid obligation in favor of such successful party though not specifically named in the bond.



This is an original petition in this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to reinstate an election protest over the offices of vice-president and six councilors of the municipality of Lemery, Batangas, and to proceed to try the same on its merits. The respondents, having been required to show cause in usual course, have answered, and the cause is now before us upon the issue thus presented.

It appears that after the general election in June of the current year, the respondents herein, except Judge Filamor, were declared elected respectively to the offices of president, vice-president and ten councilors in the municipality of Lemery, Batangas. Within due time thereafter a contest was instituted over said offices by Ruperto Venturanza, as contestant for the office of president, Jeremias Ynumerable, as contestant for the office of vice-president, and the six other petitioners herein as contestants for the office of councillor. In this proceeding the persons elected to said offices were named as contestees. In due time thereafter a bond was given for the expenses and costs in the amount of P3,500, as fixed by the respondent judge. Said bond was expressed in the following

"A contest having been presented by Ruperto Venturanza, Jeremias Ynumerable, Julian Malabanan, Gregorio Marquinez, Ildefonso Marasigan, Dalmacio Mortel, Marcelo Villamin and Emiliano de la Luna against the election of Vicente Makabuhay, Rufino Pisigan, Zacarias Marasigan, Urbano Lota, Vicente Montenegro, Cornelio Morales, Marcos Catibog, Juan Mayuga, Jose Baldoza, Leoncio Noble, Valentin Mulintapang and Aniceto Makabuhay, for the offices of municipal president, vice-president and councilors of the municipality of Lemery, Province of Batangas, and a bond having been fixed by the court in the amount of three thousand and five hundred pesos (P,500), Philippine currency or the admission of said

"Now, therefore, we, Ruperto Venturanza, as principal obligor, and Fulgencio Reyes, Segundo Maranan, Juan Diomampo and Ramon Atienza, all of the municipality of Lemery, Province of Batangas, jointly and severally hereby obligate ourselves to pay the expenses and other incidental costs that may be incurred on account of said contest up to the amount of three thousand and five hundred pesos (P3,500)."cralaw virtua1aw library

This bond was signed by Ruperto Venturanza, as principal, and by the four mentioned therein as bondsmen. It will be noted that the names of none of the contestants, except Ruperto Venturanza, appears signed as principal obligors therein. Nevertheless the bond was approved by the court; and after an appropriate order had been made for the prosecution of the contest, the cause proceeded with the usual incidents, not omitting a motion of counter-protest instituted in due form by the contestees.

After a committee had been appointed for the review of the ballots, the boxes were opened and votes counted, with the result, so the petition alleges, that the petitioner Ynumerable appeared to have been elected to the office claimed by him as probably also others of the contestants to the office of councilors. The protest being thus brought to the stage where it was ready for final determination by the court, the contestees raised a question before the court as to the sufficiency of the bond as regards Ynumerable and the contestants for the office of councillor. Upon this point it was urged that no bond had ever been given by said contestants and that therefore the court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with the contest as regards to them

In an order of October 7, 1925, his Honor, the respond ent judge, acceded to this contention and dismissed the protest with respect to Ynumerable and the six contestants for the office of councillor. Against this action of the court, the contestants affected by the order interposed a motion for reconsideration, and asked leave of the court to permit said contestants to file an amended bond, which they offered to do. Both these petitions being denied, relief was sought in the present proceeding for a writ of mandamus.

We are of the opinion that his Honor was in error, both as to the supposed insufficiency of the bond and as to the effect of the supposed irregularity on the contest. It is established doctrine in this court that the giving of the bond in an election protest is not jurisdictional; and, furthermore, that where an insufficient bond is given, the contestant has a right to submit a sufficient bond within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the court, before the contest can be dismissed. (Lucero v. De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852.) In the bond before us the preamble recites that a contest had been instituted by the parties-contestant, naming them; and it will be noted that this was a joint contest, consisting of a single proceeding against the officers-elect named as contestees. Though all of the contestants were not named as principal obligors, it must be considered that this bond was submitted in behalf of all of them and that it inured to their benefit. It is undeniable that the principal and bondsmen named in this bond would be liable thereunder for all of the lawful expenses and costs that might be taxed under section 482 of the Election Law, as amended by section 28 of Act No. 3210. The purpose of the law is to secure the obligation to pay the lawful expenses and costs, and this being secured, the purpose of the law is accomplished.

As for the contestants who are not named as principals in the bond, they are of course liable under the express provision of law, without the necessity of any bond, and there is nothing in the suggestion that the omission of the names of certain of the contestants relieves them from legal liability Neither can the bond be declared ineffective because no persons are specifically named therein as obligees. The law intends that the successful party who has paid expenses and costs shall have a right to collect them, and the bond is a valid obligation in favor of such successful party, to be determined by the issue of the contest. There is therefore no necessity for a new bond so long as the obligors named in this bond remain solvent for the amount named.

It follows that the writ of mandamus must be issued as prayed, requiring the respondent judge to proceed with the determination of the contest as regards the petitioners herein, regardless of his order of October 7, 1925, and enter judgment therein on the merits according to law. The costs will be paid by the respondents who are contestees.

Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

November-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 25966 November 1, 1926 - MANUEL TORRES, ET AL. v. MARGARITA LOPEZ

    049 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 25706 November 2, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANUNCIACION ROSAL

    049 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 24084 November 3, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAMIREZ

    048 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 24224 November 3, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. RAMON MAZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 25241 November 3, 1926 - HARRIE S. EVERETT, ET AL. v. ASIA BANKING CORP., ET AL.

    049 Phil 512


    049 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 25795 November 6, 1926 - C. T. WILLIAMS v. TEOFULO SUÑER

    049 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 24914 November 6, 1926 - JEREMIAS YNUMERABLE v. ENRIQUE V. FILAMOR

    048 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 25888 November 6, 1926 - GERARDO GUSTILO, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ

    049 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 25292 November 10, 1926 - HILADO & HILADO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROV. OF OCC. NEGROS

    049 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 25777 November 10, 1926 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CEBU v. PHIL. RAILWAY CO., ET AL.

    049 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 26017 November 11, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANACIO JAGON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 25445 November 12, 1926 - SINGH v. JUAN SULSE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 563

  • G.R. Nos. 25642 & 25643 November 12, 1926 - BPI v. GABRIELA ANDREA R. DE COSTER, ET AL.

    049 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 26323 November 12, 1926 - AGAPITA VILLADOS, ET AL. v. EGMIDIO SAN PEDRO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 25912 November 15, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. BENIGNO PALAMOS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 24794 November 17, 1926 - AURELIO CECILIO v. GABRIEL BELMONTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 26418 November 18, 1926 - AQUILINO CALVO, ET AL, v. Hon. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. 26555 November 16, 1926 - BALDOMERO ROXAS, ET AL. v. Hon. MARIANO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 25920 November 17, 1926 - M.W. STAIGHT v. A.D. HASKELL, ET AL.

    049 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 26284 November 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL.

    049 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 26130 November 18, 1926 - PEDRO RIVERA, ET AL. v. Hon. C. CARBALLO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 23999 November 21, 1926 - GREGORIO ZAGALA v. EUSTACIO S. ILUSTRE

    048 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 25254 November 22, 1926 - Mons. ALFREDO VERZOSA v. ZOSIMO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    049 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 25726 November 22, 1926 - PANTALEON E. DEL ROSARIO v. RESTITUTO VILLEGAS

    049 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 24804 November 24, 1926 - LEANDRA MANLAPAS, ET AL. v. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    048 Phil 298


    049 Phil 647