G.R. No. 30173, December 14, 1928
PEDRO SALDAÑA, petitioner-appellant, vs. CRISPULO CONSUNJI, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro Saldaña filed an election protest on June 18, 1928, contesting the results of the municipal election for president of Samal, Bataan, held on June 5, 1928. His motion alleged various irregularities, such as the rejection of ballots in his favor and electioneering by the protestee’s leaders. However, the motion did not allege that the municipal board of canvassers had proclaimed a winning candidate. The protestee, Crispulo Consunji, moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the motion failed to allege a proclamation. Saldaña subsequently filed a motion to amend his protest to include an allegation that Consunji was proclaimed elected on June 6, 1928. The trial court dismissed the protest and denied the motion to amend.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the election protest despite the protestant’s failure to allege in his original motion that a proclamation of an elected candidate had been made.

RULING

No. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. Under Section 479 of the Administrative Code (as amended by Act No. 3387), an election protest must be filed within two weeks *after the proclamation*. The fact of proclamation is an essential, jurisdictional requirement that must appear on the face of the motion of protest. Since Saldaña’s original motion failed to allege this fact, the court could not determine if it had jurisdiction (i.e., if the protest was filed on time). The proposed amendment, filed 36 days after the alleged proclamation (well beyond the two-week period), could not cure the jurisdictional defect. An amendment that supplies an omitted essential jurisdictional fact after the statutory period for filing a protest has lapsed is not permissible, as it would effectively initiate a new protest out of time. The order of dismissal is affirmed.