G.R. No. 30314 , December 15, 1928
PABLO DE LA ROSA Y CLIMACO, protestant-appellant, vs. HERMOGENES YONSON, MARCOS MAHILUM and ANGELICO MEDINA, protestees-appellees.

FACTS

Pablo de la Rosa y Climaco (protestant-appellant) filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros against Hermogenes Yonson and others. In his protest, he alleged that he and the protestees were candidates for municipal president of Calatrava in the June 5, 1928 elections. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Yonson as the elected president with 323 votes, while de la Rosa received 277 votes. The core allegation was that Yonson was ineligible for the office because he had not yet completed 23 years of age at the time of the election, as required by law (citing Section 2174 of the Administrative Code). De la Rosa’s pleading was titled “Protest” and specifically invoked the court’s jurisdiction under Section 479 of Act No. 3387 (the Election Law), which governs election contests. He prayed that Yonson be declared ineligible, his election be declared a failure, and that the board of canvassers be ordered to correct the returns and proclaim de la Rosa as the elected president.

Yonson demurred to the protest, arguing, among other grounds, that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the pleading failed to state a cause of action. In response, de la Rosa argued that his protest contained allegations constituting a remedy in the nature of *quo warranto*. The trial court ruled that de la Rosa had chosen to proceed under the election contest procedure (Section 479) and could not, after the lapse of the statutory period for filing a *quo warranto* proceeding (two weeks from proclamation under Section 408), change his theory. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the protest. De la Rosa appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the election protest on the ground that the protestant, having elected to pursue the remedy of an election contest under Section 479 of Act No. 3387, could not later treat his protest as a *quo warranto* proceeding under Section 408 of the same law.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the protest.

The Court held that while Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction over both election contests (Section 479) and *quo warranto* proceedings (Section 408), these are distinct remedies governed by different legal provisions and cannot be pursued jointly in the same proceeding. The protestant made a clear election to invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Section 479 by: (1) titling his pleading “Protest”; (2) explicitly stating in paragraph 5 that Sections 408 and 2659 did not deprive the court of jurisdiction under Section 479; and (3) praying for relief characteristic of an election contest (correction of returns and proclamation).

Having made this election, the protestant was bound by it and could not, after the statutory period for filing a *quo warranto* had expired, change his theory and assert that his protest was also a *quo warranto* complaint. The doctrine of election of remedies applies: a party who chooses between two inconsistent remedies is concluded by that choice and may not resort to the other. The protestant’s attempt to shift theories was an impermissible change after the fact. Therefore, the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case. Costs were imposed on the appellant.