G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-12890; March 8, 1918

FACTS:
An election for Governor of Sorsogon was held on June 6, 1916, with Bernabe Flores, Jose Zurbito, Antonio Rocha, and Rosendo Gabionsa as candidates. Jose Zurbito was proclaimed elected on July 8, 1916. On July 19, 1916, Bernabe Flores filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance. Copies of the protest were sent by registered mail to Zurbito, Rocha, and Gabionsa, and Zurbito also received a copy personally on July 27, 1916. Rocha and Gabionsa never appeared. Zurbito, however, appeared in court on three occasions: first, on July 25, 1916, to file a motion concerning the custody of ballot boxes; second, on July 27, 1916, to move for dismissal on the ground that the protest was signed by Flores’s attorney and not by Flores personally (which motion was granted but later reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal); and third, after the case was remanded, to move for dismissal on the ground that not all candidates had been given legal notice of the protest. The lower court granted this third motion and dismissed the protest. Flores appealed, contending that proper notice had been given.

ISSUE:
Whether the protestees had been given legal notice of the election protest, thereby vesting the lower court with jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The Court held:

2. Jose Zurbito, by voluntarily appearing in court on multiple occasions for purposes other than solely objecting to the jurisdiction over his person, waived any defect in the form or manner of service of notice. His first appearance (motion on ballot box custody) and second appearance (motion to dismiss based on signature defect) constituted a general appearance, submitting himself to the court’s jurisdiction. A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of formal notice.
3. The law governing election contests (then Act No. 1582 , as amended) required proceedings “upon motion with notice” but did not specify the method of giving notice. While following the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ) for service is advisable for convenience of proof, it is not mandatory. Actual notice suffices.
Therefore, the lower court acquired jurisdiction, and the protest should be heard on its merits.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.