G.R. No. 30174, December 10, 1928
MODESTO YUMUL, protestant-appellant, vs. GREGORIO PALMA, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

Modesto Yumul filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, contesting the election of Gregorio Palma as municipal president of Concepcion, Tarlac. The protest alleged that in two precincts, members of the board of inspectors, in collusion with Palma’s partisans, violated the secrecy of the ballot by allowing these partisans to enter voting booths to watch voters and see their ballots. Yumul prayed for the annulment of the elections in those precincts, which would result in him having a plurality of votes. The protest was filed on June 25, 1928. Palma moved to dismiss the protest on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the protest failed to state a cause of action. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the protest, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the protest did not allege that it was filed within the two-week period after proclamation as required by law.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the election protest, considering that the motion of protest did not allege that it was filed within the two-week period following the proclamation of the elected candidate.

RULING

No. The lower court did not acquire jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the protest.

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court held that the legal requirement for filing an election protest within two weeks after the proclamation of the elected candidate is mandatory and jurisdictional. This time limit is not akin to an ordinary statute of limitations that can be waived; non-compliance deprives the court of jurisdiction. For the court to acquire jurisdiction, the fact that the protest was filed within this statutory period must appear, either expressly or by implication, in the motion of protest itself.

In this case, Yumul’s protest stated the date of the election (June 5, 1928) and the date it was filed (June 25, 1928), but it did not state the date of Palma’s proclamation. Therefore, from the face of the protest, the court could not determine whether it was filed within the mandatory two-week period following proclamation. The mere filing date on the protest is insufficient without the corresponding proclamation date to establish timeliness. Consequently, the lower court correctly dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction. The Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the second assigned error regarding the allegations of ballot secrecy violations.