[ G.R. No. 21265. September 29, 1923 ] 52 Phil. 962
[ G.R. No. 21265. September 29, 1923 ]
THE NACIONALISTA PARTY AND THE COLECTIVISTA PARTY, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The Municipal Board of the City of Manila, the losing party in mandamus proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila, has, by the usual method, the perfection of a bill of exceptions and assignments of error, brought the case to this court. The appellant has been met on the threshold of the argument by the proposition advanced by the appellees, the Nacionalista Party and the Colectivista Party, that the case is not appealable and the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to consider it.
We are all of the opinion that the point just mentioned is without particular merit. The Supreme Court is given appellate jurisdiction over all actions and special proceedings properly brought to it from Courts of First Instance. This has been the uniform practice. Jurisdiction seems only to be denied the Supreme Court in municipal election contests. (Act No. 136, section 18; Code of Civil Procedure, section 496; Act No. 3030, section 44.)
The errors assigned by appellant and the argument of both parties, naturally, find their inspiration in the decision of the trial judge, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno. An examination of this decision discloses that it has been carefully and thoughtfully prepared and that no useful purpose would be served by an attempted restatement of the facts and the law. We propose, therefore, to set forth the said decision in its entirety:
“On the occasion of the special election to be held on October 2, 1923, in the Fourth Senatorial District, a question has been raised as to the method which should be followed in the appointment of election inspectors for the several precincts of the City of Manila, in substitution of inspectors who have either resigned, or are at present absent from the Philippines, or who have died, and whose appointments had been made for the general election of 1922, subsequent to the election of 1919. It is a well-known fact that on account of a split in the ranks of the Nacionalista Party, which was victorious in the general election of 1919, a question arose as to the appointment of the inspectors for the general election in 1922, that is, whether the two inspectors to which the Nacionalista Party was entitled, under section 11 of Act No. 3030, should be divided: One for the party denominated ‘Colectivista’ and another for the party called ‘Unipersonalista.’ Said question was decided to the effect that the two inspectors belonging to the Nacionalista Party be divided between the old party and the new, or Colectivista Party; and thus the Unipersonalista, the Colectivista and the Democrata parties had each one inspector. This solution, first suggested by the Executive Bureau, was afterwards followed, adopted and sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in the case of Bonifacio Ysip vs. Municipal Council of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija (43 Phil., 352). In that case the high Tribunal, among other things, said:
“‘The highest number of votes was cast for the Partido Nacionalista, and the second highest number for the Partido Democrata. Recently, however, as appears from the record, and as a matter of current political history of which the courts can take judicial notice, the Partido Nacionalista divided into two parties, the Partido Nacionalista, commonly known as Unipersonalista, and the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista; or, if this statement be objected to by partisans of the Partido Nacionalista, a new party known as Partido Nacionalista-Colectivista was organized. * * *.
“‘A liberal construction of the law will, on the other hand, permit the Nacionalista-Colectivista Party to have representation on election boards in all municipalities in which the old Nacionalista party polled the largest number of votes at the last election. Such interpretation and application of the law will not do violence to it, in view of the notorious fact that the party which won the election in many municipalities, such as Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, the Nacionalista Party has now split its forces between the old party and a new party.’ Thereafter, and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the same Supreme Court laid down the following doctrine:
“‘We hold that, in municipalities where it is shown that the Partido Nacionalista polled the largest number of votes at the last election and the Partido Democrata the next largest number of votes at said election, and where in such municipalities, in addition to the Partido Nacionalista there has been duly organized a new party known as the Partido Nacionalista-Colectivista, one election inspector and one substitute shall belong each to the Partido Nacionalista, the Partido Nacionalista-Colectivista, and the Partido Democrata.’
“The following case is now presented: Among the election inspectors in Manila belonging to the Colectivista and Nacionalista parties, some have resigned their positions, others are absent from the Philippine Islands and still others have died. The Municipal Board of the City of Manila, in appointing the inspectors in substitution for those who have resigned, or were absent, or have died, decided, in accordance with Exhibit C, to give to the Nacionalistas and Colectivistas, that is, to the association called Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista, one inspector only for each of the precincts and allowing the Democrata Party the two remaining inspectors, on the ground that the Democrata Party was the one which polled the largest number of votes in the City of Manila in the last general election (referring to the election for the year 1922) and on the further ground that the Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista is represented in the electoral precincts either by a Nacionalista or Colectivista.
“This action by the Municipal Board of Manila gave rise to the filing by the representatives of the Nacionalista and Colectivista parties of the petition for mandamus which is now before us.
“From the evidence adduced during the trial of this case the following facts have been established:
“‘1. That in the City of Manila there has existed a political party denominated the Nacionalista Party which was afterwards divided into two parties known as Partido Nacionalista (commonly known as Unipersonalista) and the Colectivista Party.
“‘2. That in the general election for the year 1919, in the City of Manila, the Nacionalista candidate, Hon. Pedro Guevara, obtained 11,585 votes as against his rival candidate, Don Juan Sumulong, Democrata, who obtained 9,824 votes.
“‘3. That when the appointment of inspectors for the general election in 1922 was made, the Nacionalista Party was already divided and, for that reason, one inspector was given to the Unipersonalista Party, one to the Colectivista, and another to the Democrata Party.
“‘4. That the Colectivista Party, which sprang from the Nacionalista Party, had a distinct and independent personality from that of the Nacionalista Party.
“‘5. That on several occasions an attempt was made to unite or amalgamate the two fractions, Unipersonalista and Colectivista, but, up to the present time, only an understanding or, at most, a coalition has been entered into and, not a real fusion, resulting in the fact that the two wings of the Nacionalista Party, otherwise known as the Unipersonalistas and Colectivistas, are still retaining a distinctive personality of their own.
“‘6. That the so-called Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista is the outcome of an understanding between the two parties, Nacionalista and Colectivista.
“‘7. That the position of election inspectors held by Felino Galura, Colectivista; Paulino L. Rivera, Colectivista; Marciano Gonzales, Colectivista; Vidal P. Deunida, Colectivista; Leopoldo Delfin, Unipersonalista; Bonifacio Abella, Unipersonalista; Sergio M. Aragon, Colectivista; Emigdio de la Cruz, Colectivista; Emilio Pestaño, Unipersonalista; Amando del Rosario, Colectivista; Hermogenes Meneses, Colectivista; Maximino Aquino, Colectivista; Heraclio Villamor, Colectivista; Matias Capinpin, Unipersonalista; Jose P. Gatpandan, Unipersonalista; Filemon Bautista, Colectivista; Juan P. Canseco, Unipersonalista; Eusebio E. Montaño, Colectivista, and Nicolas Canseco, Unipersonalista became vacant, some by resignation, others, on account of absence from Manila, and still others, on account of death.
“‘8. That Mr. Jose Quirante, secretary for the group or party Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista, submitted to the Municipal Board of Manila a list (Exhibit B) of the names proposed to fill the vacancies on account of resignation, absence, or death, but the names appearing on said list were neither accepted nor appointed by the Board which appointed, in their stead, those appearing on the list presented by the Democratas, on the ground that the Democrata Party obtained the majority of the votes in Manila in the last election of 1922.’ (Exhibit C, par. b, page 311.)
“In order not to be misled in considering and deciding the question before us, two facts must be borne in mind, to wit: First, that the election inspectors who are sought to be appointed are mere substitutes for those who have died, or are absent, or have resigned their positions, whose appointments were made on the occasion of the general election for the year 1922, and second, that the election to be held on October second, next, wherein the new inspectors will act as such, is a special election.
“In accordance with section 11 of Act No. 3030, the inspectors appointed for the general election in 1922 were appointed for three years or until their successors have been appointed in their stead, that is to say, until the year 1925, when the general election will be held. This same legal provision provides that ‘in case of vacancy in the office of election inspector or poll clerk, the same shall be covered for the remainder of the term, by the Municipal Council as above provided,’ thus, the tenure of office of the newly appointed inspectors will be only for the balance of the period of three years during which the inspectors who have resigned, or are absent, or have died should have discharged their duties, that is to say, until the new inspectors are appointed for the general election for the year 1925, and that these vacancies should be filled ‘as above provided,’ using the same language of the Act.
“What does the phrase ‘as above provided’ mean? By this language the Legislature intended, in the opinion of this court, that the appointment of inspectors who are to substitute or take the place of those who have died, or are absent, or have resigned, should be made in the same manner and on the same basis as the appointments of inspectors for whom the substitution has been made. And, since, for the appointment of those inspectors who have died, or resigned, the result of the 1919 general election has been taken into consideration (wherein the Nacionalista Party was victorious), the Municipal Board cannot now ignore the result of the 1919 election and take as a basis for the new appointments the result of the general election of 1922, because this is not a question of the appointment of inspectors for the general election in 1925, but of substitute inspectors who will act as such in the special election for the Fourth Senatorial District; and, consequently, the Municipal Board in filling these vacancies is bound to give to the old Nacionalista Party, victorious in the 1919 election, or to its two wings or subdivisions, two inspectors to which it is entitled, that is, an inspector for each of its fractions (Unipersonalista and Colectivista) and, one for the Democrata for each electoral precinct in the City of Manila.
“That this was the intention of the Legislature, the court has no doubt whatever. And this assertion is confirmed by the provisions contained in section 12 of said Act No. 3030 which, in referring to the manner how to fill the temporary vacancies, states: ‘If at the time of any meeting of the inspectors there shall be a vacancy in the office of any inspector or poll clerk, or if any inspector or poll clerk shall be absent from any such meeting * * *, the inspector or inspectors present shall call one or more substitutes, as the case may be, belonging to the same political party, branch, or fraction thereof or local political group as the absent inspector or poll clerk * * *; if the substitutes cannot be found, then the inspectors present shall appoint a qualified elector of the precinct, at the proposition of the watchers belonging to the party of the absentee, who, in case of an inspector, shall be a member of the same political party or fraction thereof or political group as the absentee, to fill such vacancy until such absent officer shall appear or the vacancy be filled.’
“Now then, to fill a temporary vacancy (for one hour, one day or for a time necessary until the termination of the election) the law requires that the substitutes must belong to the same political affiliation as the one substituted; by analogy and by that legal principle ‘Where there is the same reason, the same law must be applied.’ That rule must be followed also in filling a definite vacancy on account of death, absence from the Philippine Islands, or resignation.
“To this resolution or conclusion, as you may call it, the respondent seems to reply that the two political parties denominated Unipersonalista and Colectivista are no longer in existence, because they have again united under the name Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista and that, consequently, this new party is only entitled to one inspector for each electoral precinct, the two remaining inspectors belonging to the other party which is the Democrata Party, on the ground that this party was victorious in the last general election of 1922. This last proposition, referring to the contention of the Democrata Party to have two inspectors in the coming special election for the Fourth Senatorial District on the ground that the party was victorious in Manila in the general election of 1922, has already been demonstrated to be untenable.
“The other contention, that is, that at the present time there is but one party, which is the so-called Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista, and that, consequently, the former parties denominated Unipersonalista and Colectivista, cannot now, individually, that is, each party, claim an inspector which formerly they had, in compliance with the circular of the Executive Bureau and in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, is likewise untenable. In the first place, the Colectivista Party, then recently organized, was given one of the inspectors belonging to the Nacionalista Party, not for the reason that it is a political party, but because that right was recognized for the simple reason that it is a fraction of the Nacionalista Party who obtained the majority vote in the general election of 1919 as against the Democrata Party. In the second place, and admitting for the sake of argument that the wings or fractions of the Nacionalista Party have again united into one party denominated Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista, we can see no reason why the same number of inspectors should not be allowed to this new group, coalition or political party, resulting from the union of the two parties, Unipersonalista and Colectivista. As a matter of common knowledge, the so-called Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista is, in substance, the same political party known as the Nacionalista Party. In other words, whether the two wings of the Nacionalista Party have united or not, there is no law nor reason which will justify the refusal to allow them (the Unipersonalista and Colectivista parties) or the political group denominated Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista the two inspectors to which the Nacionalista Party is entitled.
“Let us now examine the other phase of the question. The respondent contends that the Unipersonalista and Colectivista parties have no right to the remedy prayed for, because they have not submitted to the Municipal Board a list of the eligibles for the position of election inspector. But this contention is untenable, for the reason that the political group or party denominated Coalicion-Nacionalista-Colectivista, composed of members of the Unipersonalista and Colectivista parties, has submitted to the Board a list of eligibles who are affiliated with the Unipersonalista and Colectivista parties.
“For the foregoing reasons the court holds that the writ of mandamus should issue and to that effect it is hereby ordered that the Municipal Board immediately proceed to fill the vacancies of the position of election inspector, appointing persons having the same political affiliation as those who have died, or are absent, or have resigned their positions, in such a manner that in each electoral precinct the three parties, the Nacionalista, Colectivista and Democrata, will each have its corresponding inspector, selecting the names of such persons from the list submitted by the representative of the said political parties. And, in case an appointment has been made not in accordance with this decision, same must be immediately revoked and a new appointment made accordingly. And, finally, the costs of these proceedings must be paid by the members of the Municipal Board who were present at the session of August 28, 1923, and who took part in the resolution which gave rise to the filing of this petition for writ of mandamus.
“It is so ordered.”
To what has been so well and clearly said by Judge Nepomuceno, little need be added. In accordance with the Election Law—and the law must be our guide—ninety days immediately prior to the general election in 1922, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila appointed three inspectors of election and one poll clerk, with their respective substitutes, for each electoral precinct. In accordance with the Election Law, these inspectors of election and poll clerks were selected on the basis of the number of votes polled in the City of Manila “at such preceding election,” which, necessarily, was the election in 1919; and by virtue of the arrangement then agreed upon, one inspector of election in each electoral precinct was assigned to each of three parties, the Partido Nacionalista, the Partido Colectivista and the Partido Democrata. In accordance with the Election Law, the inspectors of election and poll clerks thus selected were to “hold office for three years,” that is, until ninety days prior to the general election in 1925, “or until their successors shall have taken charge of the same.” Finally, in accordance with the Election Law, “in case of a vacancy in the office of election inspector,"—and this is the fact before us—“the same shall be covered for the remainder of the term by the Municipal Council, as above provided,"—which can mean nothing else than that vacancies in the office of election inspector were to be filled for the remainder of the terms in exact conformity with the method and regulations provided for the choice of election inspectors originally, or on the basis of the election in 1919. When the time arrives for the naming of election inspectors and poll clerks for the election in 1925 which, however, is not our case, they will be chosen on the basis of the election in 1922. (See Act No. 3030, section 11; Provincial Circular, Executive Secretary, March 10, 1922; Opinions, Attorney-General, August 19, 1909, August 31, 1909, and May 11, 1912; Rodriguez and Juta vs. Municipal Council of Tagig [1919], 39 Phil., 812; Ysip vs. Municipal Council of Cabiao [1922], 43 Phil., 352.)
Judgment is affirmed without costs. So ordered.
Araullo, C. J., Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.