G.R. No. 42071 ; July 20, 1934
FELIX V. KATIPUNAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a joint election protest in the Court of First Instance of Rizal contesting the election results for the offices of municipal president, vice-president, and municipal councilors of Binangonan, Rizal. Respondents moved to dismiss the protest, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the protest improperly joined contests for different offices in a single motion, citing Section 479 of the Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3834 . The provision stated that protests for specific offices must be separate, but allowed protests for vice-president and municipal councilors to be united in one motion. The respondent judge issued an order holding the protest defective but not jurisdictionally fatal, giving petitioners three days to amend it by separating the protests, or else the protest would be dismissed. Petitioners filed this certiorari action, alleging the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion.

ISSUE

Did the respondent judge exceed his jurisdiction or abuse his discretion in ordering the petitioners to amend their joint election protest to correct a misjoinder of parties/offices?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The defect in the joint protest was a misjoinder of parties, not a jurisdictional flaw. A motion to dismiss based on misjoinder is akin to a demurrer and does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the case or to order the amendment of pleadings to correct the defect. The respondent judge acted within his authority in ordering the amendment. The petitioners were allowed to amend their protest, and any excluded party could file a separate protest dated as of the original filing.

AI Generated by Armztrong.