GR L 15964; (January, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15964; January 12, 1920
GETULIO PALOMATA, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO VILLAREAL, auxiliary judge of first instance, Sixth Group of Judicial Districts, MATEO BRIONES and ERMITO TORRES, respondents.
FACTS:
An election for municipal president was held in Nabas, Capiz, on June 3, 1919. After proclamation, an election protest was filed in the Court of First Instance. On July 30, 1919, the judge rendered a decision annulling the election in the second precinct and recommending a new election, believing that no candidate had obtained more than one-half of all legal votes cast. Upon reconsideration, the judge concluded he had misinterpreted Sections 471 and 477 of the Administrative Code, which required only a plurality of votes for election. On August 9, 1919, he revised his decision, declared the candidate with a plurality duly elected, and ordered the municipal board of canvassers to correct its canvass accordingly. The petitioner challenged the court’s jurisdiction to modify its July 30 decision, arguing it was final and unalterable.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance, in a municipal election contest where its decision is final and unappealable, retains jurisdiction to modify or correct its decision upon discovering an error of law, and within what time frame such correction may be made.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. It held that while the Election Law (Administrative Code) provides that decisions in municipal election contests are final and unappealable, it does not specify when such decisions become final or preclude the court from correcting errors. The Court ruled that procedural gaps in the Election Law may be supplied by the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ). Under Section 145 of Act No. 190 , a judge may, within thirty days after notice of a decision, set aside the judgment and grant a new trial if satisfied it is “against the law.” Applying this provision, the judge in this case acted within jurisdiction by correcting a manifest error of law within ten days of the original decision. The Court emphasized that the Legislature did not intend decisions to become final immediately without allowing parties time to examine them or judges opportunity to rectify legal errors, especially given the non-appealable nature of such decisions.