[ G. R. No. 35796. August 08, 1931 ] 55 Phil. 923
[ G. R. No. 35796. August 08, 1931 ]
FRANCISCO ANIS, GABRIEL ABRAHAM, AND CANUTO DE JOYA, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCISCO CONTRERAS, EVARISTO BRUAL, MAXIMO GENEROSO, AND PEDRO MA. SISON, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
VILLAMOR, J.:
The petitioners filed an election contest against the respondents with the Court of First Instance of Batangas because of certain irregularities committed by the board of inspectors in recounting the votes. The office in question is that of councillor for the municipality of Bauan, Province of Batangas. The respondents impeached the motion of protest and the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that said protest did not state the number of votes cast for each candidate who presented a certificate of candidacy, neither did it allege that the petitioners were voted for at the general election held in the municipality of Bauan on the 2d of June, 1931. Having heard the cause, the judge dismissed the protest upon the grounds submitted by the contestees, respondents herein. The contestants instituted these proceedings to have the order of dismissal set aside and to compel the respondent judge to reinstate the cause and proceed to the trial of the protest, on the ground that said judge exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the protest, and the petitioners have no other plain and speedy remedy to enforce their rights. The respondents in their answer denied the allegations of the petition as to the respondent judge’s failure to perform a ministerial duty and the lack of another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to enforce the petitioners’ rights. The election protest alleges as follows:
- That among others, the petitioners and the respondents filed certificates of candidacy for the office of municipal councillor for the municipality of Bauan. 2. That according to a resolution of the municipal board of canvassers for the municipality of Bauan, at its session of June 6, 1931, based upon the election returns sent in by each and every one of the seventeen precincts in said municipality, the following obtained a majority and were elected to the eight posts or offices of municipal councillor:
Marcelo Caraan with 894 votes. Francisco Manigbas with 719 votes. Hilarion Marquez with 633 votes. Francisco Aldovino with 624 votes. Francisco Contreras with 603 votes. Pedro Garcia with 585 votes. Evaristo Brual with 573 votes. And Maximo Generoso with 558 votes.
- That the petitioners herein, according to the inspectors’ statement of each and every one of the seventeen precincts aforesaid, obtained a total number of votes as follows:
Francbco Anis ……………………………………………… 634 Gabriel Abraham ………………………………………….. 511 Canuto de Joya ……………………………………………. 437
(There follow other allegations discussing the votes given to the respondents.) The grounds alleged to support the dismissal of the election protest filed by the petitioners are: (a) That the protest does not set forth the number of votes cast for each candidate who has filed a certificate of candidacy; (b) that it does not allege that the petitioners were voted for in the general election held in the municipality of Bauan on June 2, 1931. (a) The first ground is of no consequence, as the protest sets forth the number of votes cast for the eight municipal councillors-elect, among them the respondents, and also for the contestants, petitioners herein. What the law requires to be alleged in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction is that the contestant is a candidate voted for at such election and that he has duly filed his certificate of candidacy. (Sec. 479 of the Election Law, as recently amended by Act No. 3387.) These qualifications which must reside in the contestants, are averred in the protest, which alleges that the candidates for councillor in that municipality, among them the petitioners and the respondents, filed certificates of candidacy. The respondents’ answer does not allege that the contestants’ certificates of candidacy were not duly filed, and there is the legal presumption that they were so filed, because otherwise the certificates would not have been admitted by the municipal secretary and the names of the petitioners and the respondents would not have been included in the list of the candidates. The word “duly” has acquired a fixed legal meaning, and when used before any word implying action, it means that the act was done properly, regularly, and according to law, or some rule of law. In pleading the term imports but a conclusion relating only to the formalities observed or non observed, and tenders no issue. While it does not vitiate a pleading, it is surplusage, and had better be omitted. (19 C. J., 833.) (b) In their memoranda, the parties discuss the second ground at length, to wit: That the protest in question does not allege that the petitioners, contestants heretofore, were voted for in the general election held in the municipality of Bauan on June 2, 1931. The protest alleges that the three petitioners, Francisco Anis, Gabriel Abraham, and Canuto de Joya, obtained 534, 511, and 437 votes, respectively. No stretch of the imagination is needed to understand that when it is said that the contestants obtained a certain number of votes it means they were voted for; how could they have obtained any votes if they had not been voted for? May the board of inspectors or the municipal board of canvassers adjudicate votes to a person who did not obtain them in the election? May the board of inspectors adjudicate votes to a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy? Section 464 of the law itself answers, No. The pleadings must be liberally construed in order not to nullify the rights of the parties, and so construed, it is plain to the average intelligence that the allegation that the contestants obtained a given number of votes means nothing more or less than that they were voted for in the election in controversy. It cannot here be said that this is a matter of presumption: It is simply a matter of understanding the plain meaning of the words used in the protest. The motion of protest does not use the words of the law, i. e., “candidate votado,” but employs a phrase of equivalent meaning, “el candidato ha obtenido votos,” a Spanish expression both clearer and more in keeping with the rules of correct speech. In De Castro vs. Salas and Santiago (34 Phil., 818), it was held that:
“If the court has erroneously dismissed an action upon a preliminary objection and upon an erroneous construction of the law, then mandamus is the proper remedy to compel it to reinstate the action and to proceed to hear it upon its merits.”
The same doctrine was laid down in Galang vs. Miranda and De Leon (35 Phil., 269), where it was held:
“When an election protest is dismissed upon an erroneous view of the law, mandamus will issue, for the purpose of compelling a reinstatement of the protest for the purpose of giving the protestant an opportunity to be heard upon the merits of his protest.”
Once more the doctrine was upheld in Galang vs. Miranda and De Leon (36 Phil., 316):
“When a municipal election contest is dismissed on a pure technicality, which does not affect the merits or the jurisdiction of the court, mandamus will lie to compel a reinstatement of the case and to proceed to final determination.”
Wherefore, the grounds alleged in support of the order of dismissal are overruled, and in accordance with the doctrine enunciated in the cases cited above, the respondent judge is hereby required to reinstate the protest filed by the petitioners and proceed to its determination upon the merits. Without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered. Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, and Imperial, JJ., concur.