G.R. No. L-12118; February 23, 1917
CATALINO GALANG, petitioner, vs. VICENTE MIRANDA, Judge of the Court of First Instance, and GONZALO DE LEON, respondents.

FACTS:
At the general election held on June 6, 1916, for the office of municipal president of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, the returns showed Gonzalo de Leon received 162 votes and Catalino Galang received 157 votes. On June 13, 1916, Galang filed an election contest in the Court of First Instance. In his motion of protest, Galang alleged that De Leon was “duly declared elected by the board of election inspectors” on June 7, 1916. The municipal board of canvassers had, in fact, proclaimed De Leon elected on June 8, 1916. Cabiao had only one election precinct.

During the hearing on July 19, 1916, Galang’s counsel sought to present evidence that De Leon was proclaimed by the municipal board of canvassers. De Leon’s counsel objected on the ground that the motion of protest did not contain an allegation to that effect, arguing this omission was a fatal defect depriving the court of jurisdiction. The respondent judge sustained the objection, denied a request to amend the protest, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Galang then filed this original action for mandamus to compel the judge to reinstate and proceed with the election contest.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to hear the election contest because the protestant alleged that the protestee was proclaimed elected by the board of election inspectors, instead of by the municipal board of canvassers.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, directing the respondent judge to reinstate the election contest and proceed with its trial.

The Court held that while the better practice is to allege that the proclamation was made by the municipal board of canvassers (the entity authorized by law to proclaim the result), the allegation in the protest was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The law ( Act No. 1582 ) required the municipal board of canvassers to base its proclamation solely on the returns submitted by the board of election inspectors, without the power to recount votes. In a municipality with only one precinct, the figures and result proclaimed by the municipal board must be identical to those contained in the inspectors’ return. Therefore, an allegation that the board of inspectors “declared” the protestee elected was a substantial, albeit imperfect, allegation of the jurisdictional fact of proclamation. To dismiss the case on this purely technical distinction, which did not prejudice the rights of the protestee (who had been properly served and had answered), would elevate form over substance. The Court emphasized that litigation is not a game of technicalities, and its object is to ascertain the truth. The lower court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of the protestee; thus, its dismissal of the protest was erroneous.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The writ of mandamus is granted, and the respondent judge is ordered to reinstate the election protest and proceed with its trial in accordance with law. Costs are taxed against the respondent Gonzalo de Leon.