GR 23435; (January, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23435 January 30, 1970
CESARIO ABESAMIS, EMILIO BIANZON, CLARO DE LA CRUZ, PABLO PADILLA, SILVESTRE MATEO, FRANCISCO ABESAMIS, DOMINGO SERRANO, MARCELO FERNANDEZ, DEMETRIO NAGA, RUFINO POLICARPIO, and CONCHITA ABESAMIS, petitioners, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR C. REYES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija Branch III, ISAGANI GABA, DIONICIO ABESAMIS, VIRGILIO ISON, SERVANDO SANTOS, JUANITO RAMOS, EXEQUIEL MADRID, and GALICANO LADORES, respondents.
FACTS
Following the barrio elections of January 12, 1964, in San Josep, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, two conflicting proclamations were made. One Board of Election Tellers proclaimed petitioners Cesario Abesamis as barrio captain and his co-petitioners as barrio councilmen. A different board proclaimed respondents Isagani Gaba as barrio captain and his group as barrio councilmen. The Gaba group filed an election protest in the Municipal Court of Peñaranda, contending the Abesamis group’s proclamation was illegal and theirs was lawful. This petition was filed 23 days after the Abesamis group’s proclamation. The municipal judge initially dismissed the case for being filed beyond the two-week period prescribed in Section 174 of the Revised Election Code but later reversed himself and set the case for hearing. The Abesamis group then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, which dismissed it, upholding the municipal judge’s action.
ISSUE
Whether the provisions of Section 174 of the Revised Election Code, limiting the period for filing an election protest to two weeks from proclamation, apply to elections of barrio officials.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court, citing its precedent in Falcotelo vs. Gali, ruled that Section 174 of the Revised Election Code applies to barrio election protests. The Court held that the Revised Election Code governs all elections of public officers, and the same public interest and policy requiring timely contests for provincial and municipal officials apply to barrio officials, who are likewise municipal officials. The Court clarified that its earlier statement in Bautista vs. De la Cruz, suggesting these sections do not apply to barrio officials, pertained only to the question of original jurisdiction (which is vested in the municipal court under the Barrio Charter) and not to the procedural period for filing. To the extent of any conflict, Bautista vs. De la Cruz was modified. Consequently, the municipal court did not acquire jurisdiction over the protest filed out of time. Furthermore, the case was dismissed as moot and academic because the term of office of the barrio officials in question had already expired, rendering any decision of no practical effect. The petition for certiorari was granted, and the lower courts were directed to dismiss the election case.