G.R. No. 30364 , October 26, 1928
JOSE MORENTE, petitioner, vs. E. V. FILAMOR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, and ARTURO ARCE IGNACIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Morente filed an election protest against respondent Arturo Arce Ignacio for the office of provincial governor of Mindoro. The summons was served on Ignacio on July 24, 1928. On August 7, 1928, Ignacio filed a demurrer to the protest. The respondent judge overruled the demurrer on August 22, 1928, and granted Ignacio ten days to file his answer. Ignacio filed his answer and a counter-protest on August 29, 1928. Morente moved to dismiss the counter-protest, arguing it was filed beyond the 15-day statutory period from service of summons prescribed by Section 481 of the Election Law (Act No. 3387). The judge denied the motion. Morente then filed this certiorari proceeding to annul the orders allowing the counter-protest and to compel its dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether a protestee in an election contest who files a demurrer within the 15-day period from summons must also file his counter-protest within the same 15-day period, or if the filing of a demurrer extends the time to file a counter-protest.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the writ. The counter-protest was filed out of time and must be dismissed.

The Court, through Justice Villamor, held that while a protestee may demur to a protest (following jurisprudence that general rules of civil procedure apply when not contrary to the Election Law), the statutory period for filing a counter-protest is mandatory and strictly construed. Section 481 of the Election Law requires a counter-protest to be filed “within the time limit designated” for the reply (i.e., within fifteen days after summons or appearance). The filing of a demurrer does not extend this period for the offensive act of filing a counter-protest. The law aims for expediency in election cases. Allowing a counter-protest beyond the 15-day period, even if an answer is filed later due to a demurrer, would contravene this intent and cause undue delay. Therefore, Ignacio’s counter-protest filed on August 29, 1928, was filed beyond the 15-day period from July 24, 1928, and was invalid.

DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Malcolm, joined by Justices Johnson, Street, Ostrand, and Johns):
The dissent agreed that a demurrer is permissible but argued that if a demurrer is filed within the 15-day period and overruled, the protestee should be allowed a reasonable time thereafter to file an answer, which may include a counter-protest. They contended that the statutory term “reply” encompasses both defensive (demurrer/answer) and offensive (counter-protest) pleadings. However, they emphasized that the primary goal of the Election Law is speedy disposition, and their interpretation should not be used to justify dilatory tactics. In this specific case, since the counter-protest was filed promptly after the demurrer was overruled, they would have allowed it.