G.R. No. 30263, December 8, 1928
ROMAN ACERDEN, petitioner-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO TONOLETE, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

In the general elections of June 5, 1928, Roman Acerden and Santiago Tonolete were the only candidates for municipal president of Carigara, Leyte. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Tonolete the winner by a margin of one vote (886 to 885). Acerden filed an election protest. The Court of First Instance, after trial, reversed the result, finding that Acerden actually obtained 913 votes against Tonolete’s 887, a plurality of 26 votes. Tonolete appealed, not contesting the factual findings, but arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the protest.

ISSUE

Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the election protest, considering the allegation in the protest that the protestant and protestee “were the two only registered candidates voted for” in the election?

RULING

YES. The trial court validly acquired jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that the allegation in the protest was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the amended election law. Previously, Section 479 of the Election Law (as amended by Act No. 3030) required that a protest be filed by a “registered candidate voted for.” This strict requirement was interpreted in prior cases to necessitate a specific allegation to that effect in the protest.

However, the Legislature amended the law through Act No. 3387, which now allows a protest to be filed by “any candidate voted for at such election and who has duly filed his certificate of candidacy.” The Court reasoned that the amendment’s purpose was to make the law “less rigorous and more practical.” While the term “registered candidate” is not exactly synonymous with the new phrase, the former is the more emphatic and comprehensive. The idea of having “duly filed his certificate of candidacy” is inherent in the meaning of being a “registered” candidate.

Therefore, the protest’s allegation that Acerden and Tonolete were the “two only registered candidates voted for” necessarily implies that Acerden was a candidate who had filed his certificate of candidacy and was voted for. This satisfied the jurisdictional requirement under the amended law.

The Court dismissed other technical arguments raised by the appellant (e.g., the form of the affidavit in the certificate of candidacy) as inconsequential, emphasizing that it would not allow “supertechnical argumentation to defeat the will of the electorate.”

The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellant.