August 1938 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > August 1938 Decisions > G.R. No. 46065 August 9, 1938 - PABLO C. CORTES v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL.

066 Phil 89:

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46065. August 9, 1938.]

PABLO C. CORTES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, ET AL., Respondents.

M. A. Zarcal, for Petitioners.

Felix Blanco in his own behalf.

Jose D. Villena, for other respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. ELECTIONS; ALLEGATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT IN THE MOTION OF PROTEST. — From the motion of protest, it is obvious that the victorious candidates were the protestees, except S.G. and I.A., and that said candidates were dully proclaimed. The language used could have been more clear and precise but the fact of proclamation of the protestees is there. Precision in pleadings is desirable but it is not to be strictly required. A single fact may be alleged in different ways with the same effect.

D E C I S I O N

LAUREL, J.:

This is a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal to proceed with the hearing of the election contest filed against the other respondents by the petitioners herein. Petitioner Pablo C. Cortes and respondents Deogracias Luciano, Sabino Gutierrez, and Irineo Aviado were candidates, in the elections held on December 14, 1937, for the office of municipal vice-mayor of Makati, Rizal. The other petitioners and the other respondents, except the respondent judge, were candidates, in the same elections, for the office of councilor, in the same municipality and province. A motion of protest was filed in time by the petitioners herein but was dismissed by the respondent judge, upon motion by the protestees (the other respondents herein), on the ground of failure to allege the jurisdictional fact that the said protestees were proclaimed elected candidates. Reconsideration of the order of dismissal was sought but was refused.

The respondent judge correctly states that failure to allege in the motion of protest that the protestees were proclaimed elected candidates in fatal to the protest. (Manalo v. Sevilla, 24 Phil., 609; Ferrer v. Gutierrez David and Lucot, 43 Phil., 795; Yumul v. Palma, 52 Phil., 412; Saldaña v. Consunji, 52 Phil., 433.) An examination of the motion of protest, however, shows that it contains allegations from which the jurisdictional fact of proclamation may be clearly inferred. In paragraph 4 of the motion, it is alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. que, en la proclamacion verificada por la Junta Municipal de Escrutinio en 18 de diciembre de 1937, aparacen los siguientes votos a favor de la recurrentes y recurridos respectivamente:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RECURRENTES

Votes

Pablo C. Cortes 1,773

Marcos Concepcion 1,000

Dionisio Afable 996

Tomas Gonzalez 1,008

Ventura Canilao 900

Fidel Dionisio 965

Tomas Estacio 845

Maximo Arcangel 750

Monico Policarpio 796

"RECURRIDOS

Deogracias Luciano 2,017

Sabino Gutierrez 610

Irineo Aviado 662

Félix Blanco 1,781

Diego Benito 1,681

Amado E. Diaz 1,628

Martin Santos 1,478

Pedro Santiago 1,369

Luis Anastasio 1,365

Elisio Viray 1,164

Jose Cunanan 1,095

From the foregoing portion of the motion of protest, it is obvious that the victorious candidates were the protestees, except Sabino Gutierrez and Irineo Aviado, and that said candidates were duly proclaimed. The language used could have been more clear and precise but the fact of proclamation of the protestees is there. Precision in pleadings is desirable but it is not to be strictly required. A single fact may be alleged in different ways with the same effect.

The writ prayed for is hereby granted, without any pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

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

Back to Home | Back to Main