GR L 4512; (February, 1908) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4512
GREGORIO ABENDAN, plaintiff, vs. MARTIN LLORENTE, ET AL., defendants.
February 25, 1908
FACTS:
At the municipal election in Cebu on November 5, 1907, for the office of municipal president, Vicente Sotto received 650 votes, Martin Llorente 483, and Timoteo de Castro 9. Martin Llorente filed a protest in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, alleging Sotto was ineligible and asking for his votes to be declared void and for Llorente to be declared elected. The CFI refused to hear Sotto’s lawyer, stating Sotto was a fugitive from justice. On January 4, 1908, the CFI declared Sotto’s votes void and held that Martin Llorente was the duly elected president, also ordering Sotto to pay costs.
Gregorio Abendan, identifying himself as a duly qualified elector of the municipality of Cebu, filed an original action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the CFI judgment reviewed and declared void, and to restrain Judge Wislizenus from issuing execution against Sotto’s property. Abendan was not a party to the proceeding in the CFI; that litigation was exclusively between Llorente, Sotto, and De Castro.
ISSUE:
Does a qualified elector, who was not a candidate and not a party to an election contest in the Court of First Instance, have the legal standing to maintain an action for certiorari to review the judgment rendered in that contest?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that Gregorio Abendan, as a mere qualified elector, had no standing to ask for the review of the CFI judgment. The Court found nothing in the Election Law (Act No. 1582) that allows a voter who was not a candidate to take any proceedings in court to contest the legality of an election. Section 27 of Act No. 1582 explicitly states that election contests “shall be heard by the Court of First Instance… upon motion by any candidate voted for at such election.” Since Abendan was not a party to the original proceeding in the court below and had no right under the law to become a party thereto, he likewise had no right to maintain a proceeding in certiorari to review the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding with costs against Abendan.