GR 16332; (September, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. 16332; September 23, 1920
JULIAN OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. MAXIMINO MINA, judge, and TOMAS AREJOLA, respondents.
FACTS:
An election for provincial governor of Ambos Camarines was held on June 3, 1919. The canvass showed Julian Ocampo received the highest votes. On June 27, 1919, Tomas Arejola filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance against Ocampo and other candidates. Arejola alleged Ocampo could not be found and moved for service of notice by publication, which the respondent judge granted on July 15, 1919. Notice was published in newspapers once a week for three weeks. On August 11, 1919, Ocampo’s attorneys entered a special appearance solely to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over his person, arguing he was not notified as required by law. The judge denied their appearance and proceeded with the hearing. On February 26, 1920, the judge ruled he had acquired jurisdiction over Ocampo. Ocampo then filed this original petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court to prevent the judge from further hearing the protest, claiming lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of notice.
ISSUE:
May the Court of First Instance acquire jurisdiction over the person of a protestee in an election protest case by means of publication of notice?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition. The Court held that the provisions of Section 481 of Act No. 2711 (the Election Law) requiring notice to all candidates voted for within a period not exceeding twenty days are mandatory and jurisdictional. The law does not authorize service by publication in election protest cases. The method of substituted service by publication under Sections 398 and 399 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure) is inapplicable because: (1) its prerequisites (e.g., action relating to property within the Philippines) are not present in an election protest; and (2) it requires publication for at least three consecutive weeks (21 days), which exceeds the maximum 20-day notice period prescribed by the Election Law. Since Ocampo was not notified in the manner permitted by law (i.e., personally or by leaving a copy at his residence as per Section 396 of Act No. 190), the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person. The protest, as against Ocampo, was void for lack of jurisdiction.