G.R. No. 30174 , December 10, 1928
MODESTO YUMUL, protestant-appellant, vs. GREGORIO PALMA, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

Modesto Yumul filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, contesting the election of Gregorio Palma as municipal president of Concepcion, Tarlac. The protest alleged that in two precincts, the board of inspectors and Palma’s partisans violated the secrecy of the ballot by entering voting booths to watch voters and see their ballots, thereby influencing the results. Yumul prayed for the annulment of the elections in those precincts and that he be declared the winner. The protest did not allege the date of Palma’s proclamation nor state that the protest was filed within the two-week period prescribed by law. Palma moved to dismiss the protest on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the election protest for lack of jurisdiction due to the protest’s failure to allege, either expressly or by implication, that it was filed within the two-week period after the proclamation of the elected candidate.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The Court held that the requirement to file an election protest within two weeks after the proclamation of the elected candidate is a mandatory and jurisdictional provision. For a court to acquire jurisdiction over an election protest, the protest must allege facts showing compliance with this statutory period. The protest must indicate, either expressly or by implication, that it was filed within the prescribed time. In this case, Yumul’s protest failed to state the date of proclamation or to otherwise show that it was filed within the two-week period. The mere filing date of the protest (June 25, 1928) appearing on the document was insufficient, as it did not allow the court to determine if this date was within the jurisdictional period relative to the unknown proclamation date. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction and properly dismissed the protest. The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the second assigned error regarding the allegations of ballot secrecy violations.