Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1949 > September 1949 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2296 September 14, 1949 - DOMINADOR LUCENA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

084 Phil 548:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-2296. September 14, 1949.]

DOMINADOR LUCENA ET AL., Petitioners, v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Et Al., Respondents.

Ramon Diokno and Jose W. Diokno, for Petitioners.

Javier & Javier for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTIONS; APPEAL; DECISION IN CONTESTS FOR VICE-MAYOR OR MUNICIPAL COUNCILORS. — No appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of First Instance in contests for vice-mayor or municipal councilors. The decision in Marquez v. Prodigalidad, L-2098, May 30, 1949, may be deemed an exception to this holding.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


Petitioners pray for mandamus to compel the respondent judge of first instance to approve their appeal in an election contest. The facts are not disputed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In the elections held November 11, 1947, petitioner Dominador Lucena was candidate for vice-mayor and the other petitioners were candidates for councilor in the municipality of Las Piñas, Rizal. The respondent Benito Gonzales was another candidate for vice-mayor and the other respondents (except the judge) were other candidates for councilor of the same town.

On November 12, 1947, these respondents were proclaimed elected by the municipal board of canvassers.

On November 25, 1947, herein petitioners duly filed a motion of protest which was heard before the respondent Judge Bienvenido A. Tan, together with another protest regarding the office of mayor of the same town. One set of commissioners was elected, one trial was had and one judgment was rendered wherein respondents were found to have been duly elected.

After a motion to set aside had been denied, petitioners filed a notice of appeal. Upon objection by adverse counsel, the court turned down the appeal, explaining that section 178 of the Revised Election Code does not permit "an appeal in election contests for vice-mayor and municipal councilors."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence this special civil action, the petitioners contending that said section, if interpreted as suggested by the respondents, is unconstitutional because it denies petitioners the equal protection of the laws, deprives them of due process of law and unlawfully abridges the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article VIII, section 2 of the Constitution.

The papers submitted to us show:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) In a fifty-page typewritten opinion the trial court, after discussing the reports of commissioners in more than eight precincts and the testimony of many witnesses delivered at the trial, reached the conclusion that although petty irregularities had been committed, the result of the voting could not be held invalid, and that considering the valid ballots cast at the said election, the respondents should be and are declared elected.

(2) The petitioners asked later that the decision be set aside, firstly because, contrary to the constitution "most of its findings of fact are couched in vague and general terms" ; secondly, because such findings as were specific contradicted the evidence; and thirdly, because the testimony of the handwriting expert had been misinterpreted and misunderstood.

(3) The judge denied the motion finding it to be without merit.

Prima facie the proposed appeal will involve legal and factual questions.

Now, is that appeal authorized by law? Section 178 of the present Election Code specifically allows appeals to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals (as the case may be) from decisions of Courts of First Instance in contests against the election of provincial governors, members of the provincial board, city councilors and mayors. Vice-mayors and municipal councilors are not mentioned.

In Tajanlañgit v. Peñaranda (1917), 37 Phil., 155, we declared that, in view of the provisions of the Administrative Code, decisions of the Courts of First Instance in municipal election contests were final and not appealable. The view was premised on the fact that the law directed that all election contests shall be filed with the corresponding Court of First Instance, which "shall have exclusive and final jurisdiction except as hereinafter provided . . ." and the further fact that while expressly providing for an appeal in contests of elections for provincial governors, the law contained no provision permitting an appeal in contests involving municipal officers.

Such ruling was applied in subsequent cases. 1

The present Election Code, unlike the law at the time the above-mentioned cases were considered, does not contain a provision giving "exclusive and final jurisdiction to Courts of First Instance." But the difference should be immaterial, because this Court only mentioned such final jurisdiction as one of the reasons for holding that no appeal existed. There is the other reason which is still good: The law does not provide for appeal in contests for vice-mayor and councilor, although it expressly allows appeals in contests for other positions.

In Aguilar and Casapao v. Navarro (55 Phil., 898), we held there was no appeal to this Court from the order of a Court of First Instance denying a petition for authority to correct the election returns, because section 480 of the Election Law (at that time) enumerating the cases appealable to the Supreme Court, did not include such controversial matter. We said, "a well-recognized principle of law" is "that an appeal to a higher court may only be taken when the law so provides."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, the American authorities seem to be of the opinion that in the absence of statute "no appeal or error proceeding lies from the judgment of a court in an election contest." (18 American Jurisprudence, 384 see also 29 Corpus Juris Secundum, 429, et seq.) This is not a denial of equal protection of the laws because the principle applies to all persons similarly situated. And as to due process, this Court has held that the right of appeal is statutory and is not a necessary element of due process of law. 2

We must, therefore, hold that no appeal to this Court lies from a decision of the Court of First Instance in contests for vice-mayor or municipal councilors.

The decision in Marquez v. Prodigalidad, L-2098 (May 30, 1949 3), may be deemed an exception to this holding. But herein petitioners do not fall within that exception, because unlike the Marquez case the appealed litigation involves questions of fact, and does not revolve around a question of jurisdiction. Of course it must be understood that those Justices who dissented in the Marquez case do not, upon signing this decision, repudiate the views announced in their dissent.

The petition for mandamus is denied. Without costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. De Guzman v. Cuenca, 40 Phil., 203; De la Cruz v. Revilla and Bustos, 40 Phil., 234; Municipal Council of Las Piñas v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. 40 Phil., 279; Arevalo v. Dalandan 40 Phil., 475.

2. U.S. v. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil., 218; Duarte v. Dade, 32 Phil., 36.

3. 83 Phil., 813.




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






September-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2243 September 8, 1949 - ESTANISLAO FERMIN v. COURTS OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. L-1328 September 9, 1949 - MARIANO NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. EDILBERTO A. NARCISO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-1605 September 13, 1949 - APOLONIA JIMOGA-ON v. JULITA BELMONTE, ET AL.

    084 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-2296 September 14, 1949 - DOMINADOR LUCENA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    084 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1985 September 20, 1949 - RAFAELA G. CASTRO v. JOSE P. BENGZON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. L-1592 September 20, 1949 - MARY MCDONALD BACHRACH v. SOPHIE M. SEIFERT, ET AL.

    084 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-2721 September 20, 1949 - MANUEL EUGENIO v. Hon. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-2804 September 20, 1949 - MANUEL EUGENIO v. JOSE TIANGCO

    084 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-961 September 21, 1949 - BLANDINA GAMBOA HILADO v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    084 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-3053 September 21, 1949 - NUMENCIANO BRACA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. L-7777 September 23, 1949 - FELIPE UNTAL v. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, ET AL.

    084 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. L-1662 September 27, 1949 - BACOLOD-MURCIA PLANTER’S ASS’N. v. VICENTE CHUA

    084 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-1781 September 27, 1949 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. PNB, ET AL.

    084 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. L-1786 September 27, 1949 - JOAQUIN HERRERIAS v. ROQUE JAVELLANA

    084 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. L-3078 September 27, 1949 - JOSE P. BENGZON v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. L-2357 September 28, 1949 - BIBIANA T. VDA. DE INFANTE, ET AL. v. RUPERTO JAVIER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-3346 (CA-No. 3121-R) September 29, 1949 - RICHARD BRESLIN v. LUZON STEVEDORING COMPANY

    084 Phil 618

  • Adm. No. 35 September 30, 1949 - IN RE: Atty. FELIX P. DAVID

    084 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-822 September 30, 1949 - POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. FERNANDO BUSUEGO

    084 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. L-1696 September 30, 1949 - ANACLETO DE ALMEDA, ET AL. v. ADRIANO F. CRUZ

    084 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. L-1799 September 30, 1949 - INDALECIO ELAGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. L-1802 September 30, 1949 - TORIBIO REYES v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

    084 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2162 September 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENITO TUASON

    084 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. L-2422 September 30, 1949 - MARCELO ENRIQUEZ v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    084 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 48177 September 30, 1949 - MERCEDES D. VALBUENA, ET AL. v. AURELIO REYES, ET AL.

    084 Phil 676